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

StraightThinking wrote:I never understood why this thread should have taken the unexpected turn that it did (ie suggesting that five members of the same apparently honourable family should all have been - how can I put it? - economical with the truth when dealing with the police), especially in the light of recent developments. Anyone care to speculate?

StraightThinking wrote:I never understood why this thread should have taken the unexpected turn that it did (ie suggesting that five members of the same apparently honourable family should all have been - how can I put it? - economical with the truth when dealing with the police), especially in the light of recent developments. Anyone care to speculate?

nobodythereeither wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:I never understood why this thread should have taken the unexpected turn that it did (ie suggesting that five members of the same apparently honourable family should all have been - how can I put it? - economical with the truth when dealing with the police), especially in the light of recent developments. Anyone care to speculate?

I never understood that either.

StraightThinking wrote:

statsman wrote:Am I right in reading between the lines that some posters think it's possible that Martin Smith was doing Robert Murat a favour by reporting a fictitious sighting?

Yes, but I can't understand why someone would want to pervert the course of justice in these particular circumstances - RM wasn't guilty of anything so didn't need a false sighting to help him. And if MS thought he was guilty, why would he help him out anyway?

There are two things that we can conclude:
1) Smithman wasn't M's abductor because M was missing by 21.20 and it doesn't take 35 minutes to get there
2) He wasn't an innocent local or holidaymaker because they would have come forward

And the other possibilities are...?

tigger wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:I never understood why this thread should have taken the unexpected turn that it did (ie suggesting that five members of the same apparently honourable family should all have been - how can I put it? - economical with the truth when dealing with the police), especially in the light of recent developments. Anyone care to speculate?

I never understood that either.

errm, because people are entitled to their opinion and are invited to debate on what information they base that opinion?

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:

susible wrote:I'm also reluctant to believe that the death occurred earlier, because the abduction charade was such a shambles, I honestly think that if they'd had more time to plan it, there wouldn't have been the inconsistencies, problematic timelines etc

Also Snr Amaral's thesis places the 3rd as being the day of the potential accident, due to the independent witnesses at the creche etc, and whilst I agree that the creche records were a bit of a disaster and the nannies didn't really know who their charges were, allowing for a substitute child in the creche, that would have been a very risky strategy had one of the nannies realised that the child signed in as Madeleine, was not her at all.  And of course, children of that age group can be quite vocal, so could easily say my name is not Madeleine etc, whereas a much younger child would not be able to, but the age group for Madeleine would easily be able to self-identify.

And of course there was the 9.30 -9.40 hullaballoo witnessed by the Carpenters and the tapas staff who notices that the group had all left the table except for DW.

Whilst I realise that this does not leave much time for the plan to be acted out, I have always thought that the entire sequence of events was a result of a panic reaction, which would certainly account for the inconsistencies in the tapas groups statements and timelines and Gerry inadvertently being seen by the Smiths as he frantically tried to spirit his daughter away from the apartment.

And now we know that the McCanns tried to bury the Smith sighting, I think that probably gives a good indication that Smith did see Gerry that night.

yep, Where would he have taken Madeline? Is it possible she was moved the night after the dogs searched 4A because they new the next day the beech area would be searched. This caused the delay in the Huelva trip that was due to take place the very next day?

Angelique wrote:Sorry have not read all the posts up to today but I wanted ask about this:

"1) Smithman wasn't M's abductor because M was missing by 21.20 and it doesn't take 35 minutes to get there"


Why does this come into the question of whether Smithman is the abductor - Madeleine could have gone missing anytime before Smithman. 

Smithman could have appeared when he was required to appear.

tigger wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:I never understood why this thread should have taken the unexpected turn that it did (ie suggesting that five members of the same apparently honourable family should all have been - how can I put it? - economical with the truth when dealing with the police), especially in the light of recent developments. Anyone care to speculate?

I never understood that either.

errm, because people are entitled to their opinion and are invited to debate on what information they base that opinion?

Personally, I have always believed the sighting was genuine, that it was Gerry with another child who was fast asleep to establish an independent sighting, just nothing so detailed as he got, so I've barely taken part in this discussion as it is still my opinion. I believe he switched to the JT sighting and was just able to fit in JW which made his alibi 100%.
For the Smith sighting he'd only have had the group's alibi and as we've already learned, waiters do not place him at the table between 9.30 and 10.00.
So imo there was a quick decision made to get a 100% alibi by being seen with JW as the abductor was seen by JT.
He could not know that the Smiths would not come forward till a week or so later. He needed a 100% alibi and  then there were those beige trousers on the bed and then not on the bed. There was the PJ asking what Gerry was wearing on the night, dear, dear...

StraightThinking wrote:

Angelique wrote:Sorry have not read all the posts up to today but I wanted ask about this:

"1) Smithman wasn't M's abductor because M was missing by 21.20 and it doesn't take 35 minutes to get there"


Why does this come into the question of whether Smithman is the abductor - Madeleine could have gone missing anytime before Smithman. 

Smithman could have appeared when he was required to appear.

One independent witness said he heard a girl was missing at 21.20, and another said she heard someone calling her name between 21.15 and 21.30. If someone had abducted M, he wouldn't have been wandering the streets with her for over half an hour.

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:

Angelique wrote:Sorry have not read all the posts up to today but I wanted ask about this:

"1) Smithman wasn't M's abductor because M was missing by 21.20 and it doesn't take 35 minutes to get there"


Why does this come into the question of whether Smithman is the abductor - Madeleine could have gone missing anytime before Smithman. 

Smithman could have appeared when he was required to appear.

One independent witness said he heard a girl was missing at 21.20, and another said she heard someone calling her name between 21.15 and 21.30. If someone had abducted M, he wouldn't have been wandering the streets with her for over half an hour.

 So.

1. It's an innoscent sighting unrelated.. Doesn't explain the cadaver scent in 4A
2. Madeline was moved after she was "missing" for 30 - 45 mins
3. Madeline wondered off round Praia da Luz for 30 - 45 mins then was abducted from the street... Doesn't explain the cadaver scent in 4A, does explain Gerry not being a suspect, the guilt of the McCanns as the didn't notice she'd just wondered off.

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:

Angelique wrote:Sorry have not read all the posts up to today but I wanted ask about this:

"1) Smithman wasn't M's abductor because M was missing by 21.20 and it doesn't take 35 minutes to get there"


Why does this come into the question of whether Smithman is the abductor - Madeleine could have gone missing anytime before Smithman. 

Smithman could have appeared when he was required to appear.

One independent witness said he heard a girl was missing at 21.20, and another said she heard someone calling her name between 21.15 and 21.30. If someone had abducted M, he wouldn't have been wandering the streets with her for over half an hour.

 So.

1. It's an innoscent sighting unrelated.. Doesn't explain the cadaver scent in 4A
2. Madeline was moved after she was "missing" for 30 - 45 mins
3. Madeline wondered off round Praia da Luz for 30 - 45 mins then was abducted from the street... Doesn't explain the cadaver scent in 4A, does explain Gerry not being a suspect, the guilt of the McCanns as the didn't notice she'd just wondered off.

Stewie wrote:
I've wondered if she had wandered and fallen over the balcony into the bushes where scent was found.  In the meantime she was discovered missing on a check  around 915 and that person was wandering around calling her name in case she had wandered off, then she was discovered in the bushes, taken into the flat behind the sofa whilst resuscitation etc took place there, then carried off by "smithman" to a hiding place whilst official alarm was raised....

Stewie wrote:

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:

Angelique wrote:Sorry have not read all the posts up to today but I wanted ask about this:

"1) Smithman wasn't M's abductor because M was missing by 21.20 and it doesn't take 35 minutes to get there"


Why does this come into the question of whether Smithman is the abductor - Madeleine could have gone missing anytime before Smithman. 

Smithman could have appeared when he was required to appear.

One independent witness said he heard a girl was missing at 21.20, and another said she heard someone calling her name between 21.15 and 21.30. If someone had abducted M, he wouldn't have been wandering the streets with her for over half an hour.

 So.

1. It's an innoscent sighting unrelated.. Doesn't explain the cadaver scent in 4A
2. Madeline was moved after she was "missing" for 30 - 45 mins
3. Madeline wondered off round Praia da Luz for 30 - 45 mins then was abducted from the street... Doesn't explain the cadaver scent in 4A, does explain Gerry not being a suspect, the guilt of the McCanns as the didn't notice she'd just wondered off.

I've wondered if she had wandered and fallen over the balcony into the bushes where scent was found.  In the meantime she was discovered missing on a check  around 915 and that person was wandering around calling her name in case she had wandered off, then she was discovered in the bushes, taken into the flat behind the sofa whilst resuscitation etc took place there, then carried off by "smithman" to a hiding place whilst official alarm was raised....

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Stewie wrote:
I've wondered if she had wandered and fallen over the balcony into the bushes where scent was found.  In the meantime she was discovered missing on a check  around 915 and that person was wandering around calling her name in case she had wandered off, then she was discovered in the bushes, taken into the flat behind the sofa whilst resuscitation etc took place there, then carried off by "smithman" to a hiding place whilst official alarm was raised....

The cadaver ‘odour’ needs time to mature before the dogs can indicate, it is generally thought this takes 1 ½ to 2 hours before the dogs can signal. The resuscitation element is interesting if we remember back to the radio interview Jane Tanner did where she let slip that if there was an accident there were plenty doctors available to resuscitate her (all volunteered not specifically asked about).

Stewie wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Stewie wrote:
I've wondered if she had wandered and fallen over the balcony into the bushes where scent was found.  In the meantime she was discovered missing on a check  around 915 and that person was wandering around calling her name in case she had wandered off, then she was discovered in the bushes, taken into the flat behind the sofa whilst resuscitation etc took place there, then carried off by "smithman" to a hiding place whilst official alarm was raised....

The cadaver ‘odour’ needs time to mature before the dogs can indicate, it is generally thought this takes 1 ½ to 2 hours before the dogs can signal. The resuscitation element is interesting if we remember back to the radio interview Jane Tanner did where she let slip that if there was an accident there were plenty doctors available to resuscitate her (all volunteered not specifically asked about).

So hypothetically of course, she wakes on hearing them leave , looks for themandfalls around 830ish, enough time in the bushes for the scent to develop but because its outside it is disappated.  She is then moved to inside flat where scent is deposited behind sofa and then carried away ...

Sockpuppet wrote:

Stewie wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Stewie wrote:
I've wondered if she had wandered and fallen over the balcony into the bushes where scent was found.  In the meantime she was discovered missing on a check  around 915 and that person was wandering around calling her name in case she had wandered off, then she was discovered in the bushes, taken into the flat behind the sofa whilst resuscitation etc took place there, then carried off by "smithman" to a hiding place whilst official alarm was raised....

The cadaver ‘odour’ needs time to mature before the dogs can indicate, it is generally thought this takes 1 ½ to 2 hours before the dogs can signal. The resuscitation element is interesting if we remember back to the radio interview Jane Tanner did where she let slip that if there was an accident there were plenty doctors available to resuscitate her (all volunteered not specifically asked about).

So hypothetically of course, she wakes on hearing them leave , looks for themandfalls around 830ish, enough time in the bushes for the scent to develop but because its outside it is disappated.  She is then moved to inside flat where scent is deposited behind sofa and then carried away ...

The 'window of tragedy' may well be a lot bigger than most assume.  We have no idea what was going on between 5.30 and 8.30, except for what Kate, Gerry, and David Payne have told us.

thetruthbeknown wrote:I wonder if the Portuguese reconstruction might bring forward a few more sightings of Smithman?

Stewie wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Stewie wrote:
I've wondered if she had wandered and fallen over the balcony into the bushes where scent was found.  In the meantime she was discovered missing on a check  around 915 and that person was wandering around calling her name in case she had wandered off, then she was discovered in the bushes, taken into the flat behind the sofa whilst resuscitation etc took place there, then carried off by "smithman" to a hiding place whilst official alarm was raised....

The cadaver ‘odour’ needs time to mature before the dogs can indicate, it is generally thought this takes 1 ½ to 2 hours before the dogs can signal. The resuscitation element is interesting if we remember back to the radio interview Jane Tanner did where she let slip that if there was an accident there were plenty doctors available to resuscitate her (all volunteered not specifically asked about).

So hypothetically of course, she wakes on hearing them leave , looks for themandfalls around 830ish, enough time in the bushes for the scent to develop but because its outside it is disappated.  She is then moved to inside flat where scent is deposited behind sofa and then carried away ...

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:

Stewie wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Stewie wrote:
I've wondered if she had wandered and fallen over the balcony into the bushes where scent was found.  In the meantime she was discovered missing on a check  around 915 and that person was wandering around calling her name in case she had wandered off, then she was discovered in the bushes, taken into the flat behind the sofa whilst resuscitation etc took place there, then carried off by "smithman" to a hiding place whilst official alarm was raised....

The cadaver ‘odour’ needs time to mature before the dogs can indicate, it is generally thought this takes 1 ½ to 2 hours before the dogs can signal. The resuscitation element is interesting if we remember back to the radio interview Jane Tanner did where she let slip that if there was an accident there were plenty doctors available to resuscitate her (all volunteered not specifically asked about).

So hypothetically of course, she wakes on hearing them leave , looks for themandfalls around 830ish, enough time in the bushes for the scent to develop but because its outside it is disappated.  She is then moved to inside flat where scent is deposited behind sofa and then carried away ...

I'm thinking  the same. but why behind the sofa? I'm still at a loss about the odour in the Scenic. If a body was moved... Why?

Have you a source for the time for the cadaver odour to appear. It seems Keela is pretty special and at the edge of new knowledge on this front.