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

by russiandoll 02.11.13 22:15

I am confused as well by your post, maybe if it was clearer we would not need to keep up.

You associate Smithman with 5a, so not a stranger then. That is confusing me, because I read your theory as a woken and wandering child picked up and killed by a stranger. Then I thought I had misunderstood it and re read it as a familiar adult found M who had come to harm after wandering off.

How did cadaverine develop behind the sofa if M died on the street?

by StraightThinking 02.11.13 22:33

How you read my post, russiandoll, is up to you, what matters is what I actually wrote

I'm not here to point the finger at anyone, I don't know what happened, but I do recognise what might be possible

People often say of this case that the pieces of the jigsaw don't fit, and I agree. That's because some of the accepted jigsaw pieces aren't the correct ones but everyone assumes that they are

eg this thread has widely assumed that Smithman might have been taking a deceased M from 5a to somewhere else. That is a huge assumption. As I suggested, she may have wandered off and been found near the Smith sighting location. If one makes assumptions without evidence, one is in danger of drawing wrong conclusions. So we must keep an open mind on where Smithman found her, if indeed there was a Smithman and it was M

Another example of jigsaw pieces not fitting: if M died in 5a on the evening of May 3 during the Tapas meal, she wouldn't have been there long enough for the cadaverine to develop

However, if the body spent even a short time in 5a after the initial search was over, the scent would have been detectable later on

Between 3.30 and daylight on May 4 is an interesting time

by russiandoll 02.11.13 22:44

I think it fair to say if more than one person misunderstands your posts that possibly it could have been clearer. Sarcastic remarks to chatelaine for example...suggesting it was her fault that she could not grasp your point were unfair. Why don't you just be straight and say who you believe did what and when? I am interested in any theory.

eta your post makes more sense now, I get it, so thanks for elaborating.

by ProfessorPPlum 02.11.13 23:42

Yes, unfortunately I don't follow. Wandered off...come to harm...then somehow (for some reason) body brought back to 5A to leave cadaverine behind the sofa some time between 3.30am and 6am?

Except there's no evidence that Madeleine wandered off. No evidence that she came to harm outside of the apartment. No evidence that someone found her well / hurt / dead outside 5A. No evidence that someone brought her back to 5A.

There's just cadaverine behind the sofa in 5A.

If the blood dog indicated in 5A then that's a pretty good indication that she came to harm in 5A. If there's cadaverine in the same location it shows her body lay there. If her body lay there, then Occam's razor says it's most likely she died there.

by currio 03.11.13 0:07

StraightThinking wrote:
Another example of jigsaw pieces not fitting: if M died in 5a on the evening of May 3 during the Tapas meal, she wouldn't have been there long enough for the cadaverine to develop

Who knows, if she died, when she died?......maybe the day before...now could you believe a word they said

by currio 03.11.13 2:18

currio wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:
Another example of jigsaw pieces not fitting: if M died in 5a on the evening of May 3 during the Tapas meal, she wouldn't have been there long enough for the cadaverine to develop

...if Maddie died in the apartment as the evidence would suggest...who knows it didn't happen before May 3, long enough for the cadeverine to develop .. however long that is

by StraightThinking 03.11.13 8:54

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Yes, unfortunately I don't follow. Wandered off...come to harm...then somehow (for some reason) body brought back to 5A to leave cadaverine behind the sofa some time between 3.30am and 6am?

The reason would be that you can't leave a body lying round outside waiting to be spotted the following day

Except there's no evidence that Madeleine wandered off. No evidence that she came to harm outside of the apartment. No evidence that someone found her well / hurt / dead outside 5A. No evidence that someone brought her back to 5A.

There's no evidence that she died in 5a either. Scent of death, yes, according to Eddie, but not the slightest evidence that anyone actually died there

If the blood dog indicated in 5A then that's a pretty good indication that she came to harm in 5A. If there's cadaverine in the same location it shows her body lay there. If her body lay there, then Occam's razor says it's most likely she died there.

Blood dogs indicate blood, not death. And by the same reasoning as you have made, if someone is spotted carrying a dead child somewhere in PdL (if indeed it was a dead child), it's most likely they came from somewhere nearby rather than 5 mins away

by StraightThinking 03.11.13 9:00

russiandoll wrote:I think it fair to say if more than one person misunderstands your posts that possibly it could have been clearer. Sarcastic remarks to chatelaine for example...suggesting it was her fault that she could not grasp your point were unfair. Why don't you just be straight and say who you believe did what and when? I am interested in any theory.

Apologies for my apparent tone, russiandoll, but you will find that it was the other poster who started the sarcasm, and I responded accordingly. But I am not interested in petty squabbles so that's finished now. What I am interested in is knowing why the suggestion that she wandered off (and her body was was discovered by Smithman some way down the road) should be considered so unlikely, when wandering off is a real possibility, supported by Pat Brown among others, and why the same poster always pops up to shoot down the idea and treat it with such disdain. Yes, I really do find that interesting.

Regarding the lack of clarity in my post, I feel uncomfortable about accusing people and prefer to draw attention to possible scenarios. You and the Professor have made many perceptive comments on the forum and I am sure you are capable of joining the dots.

by galena 03.11.13 9:37

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Yes, unfortunately I don't follow. Wandered off...come to harm...then somehow (for some reason) body brought back to 5A to leave cadaverine behind the sofa some time between 3.30am and 6am?

Except there's no evidence that Madeleine wandered off. No evidence that she came to harm outside of the apartment. No evidence that someone found her well / hurt / dead outside 5A. No evidence that someone brought her back to 5A.

There's just cadaverine behind the sofa in 5A.

If the blood dog indicated in 5A then that's a pretty good indication that she came to harm in 5A. If there's cadaverine in the same location it shows her body lay there. If her body lay there, then Occam's razor says it's most likely she died there.

I agree. I think that now Tannerman has been ruled out and the window for abduction is larger, the most important evidence remaining to us is the cadaver dog evidence. I originally supported theories that she might have wandered away, still be alive but changed them in the light of this evidence. I think we need to assume it is significant, follow where it goes and not try to incorporate it into existing theories at the risk of a loss of credibility. I have devised a rule - if any theory is more convulutated and difficult to believe than the McCanns' version of events I don't bother with it. The truth is usually simple.

by jowie 03.11.13 9:41

StraightThinking wrote:
russiandoll wrote:I think it fair to say if more than one person misunderstands your posts that possibly it could have been clearer. Sarcastic remarks to chatelaine for example...suggesting it was her fault that she could not grasp your point were unfair. Why don't you just be straight and say who you believe did what and when? I am interested in any theory.
Apologies for my apparent tone, russiandoll, but you will find that it was the other poster who started the sarcasm, and I responded accordingly. But I am not interested in petty squabbles so that's finished now. What I am interested in is knowing why the suggestion that she wandered off (and was discovered by Smithman some way down the road) should be considered so unlikely, when wandering off is a real possibility, supported by Pat Brown among others, and why the same poster always pops up to shoot down the idea and treat it with such disdain. Yes, I really do find that interesting.

Regarding the lack of clarity in my post, I feel uncomfortable about accusing people and prefer to draw attention to possible scenarios. You have made many perceptive comments on the forum and I am sure you are capable of joining the dots.

I will never believe in a million years that Madeleine woke and wandered. Do you seriously believe that she woke up in a dark room, opened the bedroom door and then closed it to, but not as it was left( oh and forgot to take cuddle cat with her) proceeded to go through the apartment to find the French doors ( which were covered by the curtains that her parents had drawn across before they left) then opened the sliding door and closed it behind her. From there she opened the child gate at the top of the stairs, walked down the stairs onto the street ( where apparently there was so many coming and going that no-one saw her. Instead of calling out to her mother or screaming and crying ( as one would expect of a three year old child ) she calmly walked past the main door of the complex ( which she had been through many times) and headed in the direct ion of the beach ??? On a cold and dark night, with only her thin pj's on ??

Perish the thought that she never once considered leaving her siblings alone to fend for themselves!

by pennylane 03.11.13 9:42

galena wrote:
ProfessorPPlum wrote:Yes, unfortunately I don't follow. Wandered off...come to harm...then somehow (for some reason) body brought back to 5A to leave cadaverine behind the sofa some time between 3.30am and 6am?

Except there's no evidence that Madeleine wandered off. No evidence that she came to harm outside of the apartment. No evidence that someone found her well / hurt / dead outside 5A. No evidence that someone brought her back to 5A.

There's just cadaverine behind the sofa in 5A.

If the blood dog indicated in 5A then that's a pretty good indication that she came to harm in 5A. If there's cadaverine in the same location it shows her body lay there. If her body lay there, then Occam's razor says it's most likely she died there.
I agree. I think that now Tannerman has been ruled out and the window for abduction is larger, the most important evidence remaining to us is the cadaver dog evidence. I originally supported theories that she might have wandered away, still be alive but changed them in the light of this evidence. I think we need to assume it is significant, follow where it goes and not try to incorporate it into existing theories at the risk of a loss of credibility. I have devised a rule - if any theory is more convulutated and difficult to believe than the McCanns' version of events I don't bother with it. The truth is usually simple.

Wise words indeed, ProfessorP and galena. thumbup

by StraightThinking 03.11.13 9:42

galena wrote:the most important evidence remaining to us is the cadaver dog evidence. I originally supported theories that she might have wandered away

Eddie indicated a smell of death in 5a, not the fact someone actually died there. Death could have occurred elsewhere. Keela indicated blood (ie injury) not death, though it is tenuous. So your theory of wandering off is still compatible with the dogs' indications, as long as the body was briefly returned from its temporary hidey hole to 5a en route to its final resting place

by StraightThinking 03.11.13 9:49

jowie wrote:I will never believe in a million years that Madeleine woke and wandered. Do you seriously believe that she woke up in a dark room, opened the bedroom door and then closed it to, but not as it was left proceeded to go through the apartment to find the French doors ( which were covered by the curtains that her parents had drawn across before they left) then opened the sliding door and closed it behind her. From there she opened the child gate at the top of the stairs, walked down the stairs onto the street

You are making a giant assumption - that those doors etc weren't accidentally left open or unlocked after one of the checks had been made. Whether they were closed/locked at the start of the evening is irrelevant. According to the timeline, there were either 2 or 3 checks depending on which version of the sticker book is correct, and there may have been security failures on any of them if they involved entry to 5a. If I had momentarily been distracted (eg by my phone ringing or spotting a friend passing by) and had inadvertently left an escape route open for a savvy toddler, I would feel pretty bad about it

by ProfessorPPlum 03.11.13 9:57

No straightthinking you're making the giant assumption with the idea that 'she could have dies outside 5A'. Of course she could have as she 'could have' a million other weird and wonderful possibilities (howeve unlikely). But 'could have' is meaningless without some evidence to indicate likelihood.

What evidence suggests she dies outside of 5A? None. What evidence suggests she wandered off? None.

Yes, theoretically possible, yes. Probable? Without any evidence to suggest this happened, no.

by StraightThinking 03.11.13 10:06

No Professor, but there is no evidence of anything in this case, which is why it is so mysterious. All possibilities have to be considered

There is certainly no evidence that she actually died in 5a (though there appear to have been indications that a body was there at some point) so why try to convince us that there is?

And why is it that whenever someone suggests the wandering off theory, they are jumped upon and treated with such contempt?

It happens here, it happened on 3As, it happened on the Mirror forum

The more it happens, the more I believe that it should be considered

Convince me that she didn't wander off, have a fatal accident, and was discovered a few minutes away down the road (which is where Smithman comes in)

by sami 03.11.13 10:14

Jowie, I have heard Kate Healy make same statement, almost verbatim.

That is the very reason why I consider the child waking and meeting with an accident a true possibility. Kate was steadfast in her statements that the little girl would not wake and wander.

My opinion is that in order to be certain a small child will not wake up at all, except after a certain hour as the McCanns claim, then one would need to have a specific reason to make such a claim. That to me says sedation. Then, even a mild dose of sedatives may not be guaranteed so you would need to make sure of a heavy dose.

Having had three children of that age, the only thing i am certain of is that they will rarely do as you expect and are capable of much more than we give them credit for.

Kate has always said absolutely no way. It may be in her opinion the least likely scenario, but it cannot be discounted completely, unless she was there. Then again she has said she knows because she was there, so perhaps she speaks the truth.

In the real world which is more likely - a three year old child wanders somewhere out of curiosity/fear/loneliness or a three year old child is abducted by a gang of paedophiles ?

by jowie 03.11.13 11:29

Sami, I agree with you only on one point - that Kate McCann knows exactly what happened to Madeleine. I still do not agree that Madeleine would have woken and (a) been curious as to wander out of the complex in the cold and dark, with nothing on her feet or (b) wandered because she was frightened -surely she would have called out or cried, or (c) wandered off to find her parents because she was lonely ??? Sorry I really don't see it. Also, if she was sedated then she would have almost definitely have had an accident when trying to descend the concrete steps. Ah, I could possibly agree that happening - but no dna on the steps. so still no evidence of her waking and wondering.

by StraightThinking 03.11.13 11:37

jowie wrote: I still do not agree that Madeleine would have woken and (a) been curious as to wander out of the complex in the cold and dark, with nothing on her feet or (b) wandered because she was frightened -surely she would have called out or cried, or (c) wandered off to find her parents because she was lonely Also, if she was sedated then she would have almost definitely have had an accident when trying to descend the concrete steps. Ah, I could possibly agree that happening - but no dna on the steps. so still no evidence of her waking and wondering.

It isn't possible to say how each individual child would react in these circumstances. And Eddie did detect a light scent in the flower bed at the foot of the steps, so a fatal fall down the steps has to be considered

by sami 03.11.13 11:44

jowie wrote:Sami, I agree with you only on one point - that Kate McCann knows exactly what happened to Madeleine. I still do not agree that Madeleine would have woken and (a) been curious as to wander out of the complex in the cold and dark, with nothing on her feet or (b) wandered because she was frightened -surely she would have called out or cried, or (c) wandered off to find her parents because she was lonely ??? Sorry I really don't see it. Also, if she was sedated then she would have almost definitely have had an accident when trying to descend the concrete steps. Ah, I could possibly agree that happening - but no dna on the steps. so still no evidence of her waking and wondering.

She is three and a half, she does not think about suitable outside clothing.

There was an article in one paper during the week where a man in his twenties woke in the middle of the night to use the toilet, slipped on the tiles and died, in Ibiza.

We don't know she did not call out or cry, we don't know she was not lonely and scared alone in the dark.

That is the point, we cannot say with certainty the child did not wake and get out of bed. Not even Kate can, unless she was there.

We cannot say she did not wander outside because she had no shoes on. We can say it is unlikely she could open the door/gate etc, but it's not fact. It remains a possibility. I'm not talking about her wandering two miles down the road.

Whilst I was in my kitchen a number of years ago, my four year old stood on a stool in my hallway, opened the front door and went out into the front garden. Luckily my gate was locked. I would never have considered he would take a stool, move it to the door and stand on it, but he did.

So Kate being adamant that the child would not wake and get out of bed cannot be taken as fact, IMO.

There is unexplained cadaver alerts in the flower bed.

by StraightThinking 03.11.13 11:47

PeterMac, if you read this thread, from your personal experience of 5a, please would you give an opinion on whether or it might have been possible for searchers to miss M lying in the flowerbed at the foot of the steps? Of course, this might make Smithman irrelevant. Many thanks

by Monty Heck 03.11.13 12:11

jeanmonroe wrote:IF Smithman IS a totally innocent person taking his child home WHERE does that leave SY and McCanns?

Smithman= no 'abductor'
Tannerman= no 'abductor'

Maybe one of the McCann 'friends' will suddenly 'remember' seeing yet ANOTHER 'abductor' strolling around town with a kidnapped child, wearing the EXACT same pyjamas as Madeleine SO it must have been the 'new' him/her that did it!

IF there is no 'abductor' and there's absolutely no proof at all that there was indeed an 'abduction', ONLY the McCanns SAY SO, which relied SOLELY on their friend Jane's 'sighting of Madeleine being carried off'

With the 'Madeleine' wearing the EXACT same pyjamas that JT didn't KNOW about until Gerry told 'afterwards' (cough, cough)

With the Smiths 'seeing' this person carrying a child, (in pyjamas) you'd have thought they would have given a detailed description of the pyjamas which, of course, would be an EXACT match to the ones Madeleine WAS wearing.

Did they?

Where does that leave the McCanns?

The LAST ones to admit SEEING her in her bed, supposedly.

That is the $64,000 dollar question. If Smithman is found and eliminated (and why not after the CW Euro roadshow, after all Tannerman has mysteriously now been ruled out after 6+ years) then the last plank supporting abduction finally falls. As JM says above, ONLY the McCanns SAY SO, which relied SOLELY on their friend Jane's 'sighting of Madeleine being carried off'.

Well, not quite solely reliant on JT's sighting. Despite burying the Smithman e-fits, the McCs had a curious flirtation with Smithman by including a morphing of Tannerman and Smithman in their C4 'mockumentary'. However, prior to the release of the files the McCs had relied on Tannerman alone as proof of abduction, to the extent that GMcC blustered during one TV interview, when questioned about why they were so firm in their belief that an abduction had taken pleace, that MMcC had been abducted because their friend had witnessed her being carried away.

So, back to where we are if Smithman is also ruled out of the equation. Smithman seemed of interest to the McCs solely for the purpose of propping up Tannerman. The e-fits were problematic however, in that they contradicted the description of Tannerman so were quietly set aside by the Team. If Smithman now comes forward with a set of clothes he and his child wore 6 years before (and we now know that miracles can happen). There are as we know no forensics to support a stranger abduction and we also know that a sighting of a solitary man on the night of 3 May 2007 carrying a child is not proof of a child being abducted, so that entire theory seems to now be hanging by a very slender thread.

It apparently leaves us searching for other abductors and examining people not seen carrying a child on the night of 3 May. So are we witnessing the the abduction theory being whittled out of existence, or is it being kept alive for purposes unknown?

by mouse 03.11.13 12:27

To be honest I don't know where I stand on the Smith family sightings - I never have. I just feel there is too much vagueness, tbh about all the witness statements - so I await what the PJ say with much interest.

I do think however, like many others on here that poor Madeleine did have an accident in/or around the very close vicinity of the apartment. The admittance of a drug to her and her siblings has always seemed the most likely explanation to what happened to her. Not necessarily that she was over prescribed, more that she might have woken due to being possibly under prescribed/or it just didn't work on her - we're all so different. That she when awoke called out for her parents, maybe felt a little muzzy in the heard from the drug, tottered out of bed, unsteady on her feet, and fell in the apartment, or going out of the apartment. Either way, if she was dozy her head would have hit a hard floor, or perhaps outside...? I think more likely inside. As for not leaving her siblings. Well what if she had tried to wake them and due to their being medicated too - perhaps she couldn't, and was worried about their welfare..Her reason for going to find Mum and Dad...

Sorry just thinking aloud.

by sami 03.11.13 12:43

I am a firm believer in first reactions.

My first reaction when I read the Smiths statements many moons ago was wow Murat was given an alibi. Nothing else struck me as strongly about the statements. I went forwards and backwards for a long time trying to decide what I thought and decided to believe them, on balance, partly because the alternative hurt my head.

All of that said, I still go back to Murat being named. It really was very fortunate, a bit like of all the people in all of the world......

There is a saying in Ireland, it is not what you know but who you know, and a true saying it often turns out to be.

Just because there were many Smiths together does not automatically mean they are telling the truth. Of course, without proof, there is no cause to believe they are lying, but multiple people does not automatically mean the truth, nor does a single person automatically make a liar.

For me it is easy to become emotional and believe the smiths absolutely. It is of great significance if it is true and could be key to proving an end to this story. But do I believe them because I completely accept it is the most likely scenario and they are being truthful, or is part of me desperate to believe them because it is what I want to hear.

If I'm being truthful to myself I take the statements at face value for the most part because it is what I want to hear. The niggle about Murat will not go away, the timing/delay in making his statement is significant too.

by whmon 03.11.13 12:55

sami wrote:I am a firm believer in first reactions.

My first reaction when I read the Smiths statements many moons ago was wow Murat was given an alibi. Nothing else struck me as strongly about the statements. I went forwards and backwards for a long time trying to decide what I thought and decided to believe them, on balance, partly because the alternative hurt my head.

All of that said, I still go back to Murat being named. It really was very fortunate, a bit like of all the people in all of the world......

There is a saying in Ireland, it is not what you know but who you know, and a true saying it often turns out to be.

Just because there were many Smiths together does not automatically mean they are telling the truth. Of course, without proof, there is no cause to believe they are lying, but multiple people does not automatically mean the truth, nor does a single person automatically make a liar.

For me it is easy to become emotional and believe the smiths absolutely. It is of great significance if it is true and could be key to proving an end to this story. But do I believe them because I completely accept it is the most likely scenario and they are being truthful, or is part of me desperate to believe them because it is what I want to hear.

If I'm being truthful to myself I take the statements at face value for the most part because it is what I want to hear. The niggle about Murat will not go away, the timing/delay in making his statement is significant too.

For me - I just can't tie Murat in with the cadaver scent in the apartment.

by sami 03.11.13 13:02

whmon wrote:
sami wrote:I am a firm believer in first reactions.

My first reaction when I read the Smiths statements many moons ago was wow Murat was given an alibi. Nothing else struck me as strongly about the statements. I went forwards and backwards for a long time trying to decide what I thought and decided to believe them, on balance, partly because the alternative hurt my head.

All of that said, I still go back to Murat being named. It really was very fortunate, a bit like of all the people in all of the world......

There is a saying in Ireland, it is not what you know but who you know, and a true saying it often turns out to be.

Just because there were many Smiths together does not automatically mean they are telling the truth. Of course, without proof, there is no cause to believe they are lying, but multiple people does not automatically mean the truth, nor does a single person automatically make a liar.

For me it is easy to become emotional and believe the smiths absolutely. It is of great significance if it is true and could be key to proving an end to this story. But do I believe them because I completely accept it is the most likely scenario and they are being truthful, or is part of me desperate to believe them because it is what I want to hear.

If I'm being truthful to myself I take the statements at face value for the most part because it is what I want to hear. The niggle about Murat will not go away, the timing/delay in making his statement is significant too.
For me - I just can't tie Murat in with the cadaver scent in the apartment.

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting Murat is implicated in this. I am merely pointing out that the one person in PDL at that time who needed an alibi was fortunate enough to know the witness to the extent he could say it was not him. That's all.

Log in for more topics