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

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.

by ProfessorPPlum 03.11.13 13:11

StraightThinking wrote: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)

We're back to the absurd logic of proving your imaginary god doesn't exist.

Straightthinking, I don't have to prove she didn't wander off. To propose the theory it's YOU that has to prove she did. End of discussion.

by whmon 03.11.13 13:28

Regarding the Smith family waiting 13 days to contact the police: People will think I was very wrong in my actions several years ago but I am not asking for forgiveness, I am simply being truthful about my own reactions.

Several years ago in my area, a man newly released from prison took a gun and shot 3 people including a policeman then went on the run. There was a massive manhunt and he was thought to be in my locale. One hot Summer's day I walked along a country lane and a man who fitted the description of the person in question hurried past me. He was large and muscular, very physically fit and despite the heat he was wearing a 'hoody' with the hood pulled down over his head. As he passed I glanced at him and his eyes had the look of somebody who didn't want to be seen.

I didn't contact the police and I didn't even tell my husband about it for a couple of days even though it was preying on my mind. The reason was, if I told the police then I would be in the spotlight and I didn't want to be. Also, the sighting was too near my business for comfort and I didn't want to spook my clients.

I'm only saying this to point out that for some people at least - contacting the police is a big deal when they only want a peaceful quiet life without incident. I was actually saved from my dilemma as he was caught shortly after that.

by Rob Royston 03.11.13 13:32

sami wrote:
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.

The Smiths may have been spurred into reporting their "sighting" because they knew that the man they saw was not Murat. That does not mean that they were not telling the truth. There have been so many lies told in this sad case that people will not believe anything they hear and I do not blame them, but when I think of all the different possibilities of what might have happened, and I include abduction, this sighting easily fits in.

by StraightThinking 03.11.13 13:56

ProfessorPPlum wrote:We're back to the absurd logic of proving your imaginary god doesn't exist.
Straightthinking, I don't have to prove she didn't wander off. To propose the theory it's YOU that has to prove she did. End of discussion.

As usual, as soon as someone mentions M wandering off, someone else becomes aggressive, it's as if there's an element on here trying to distract us away from it

I don't respond to people in arguments declaring an end to the discussion when they haven't proved their own point

Wandering off doesn't need evidence to still be a possibility any more than the widely repeated but never demonstated theory of M dying in 5a does

Proving that she didn't wander off would be an end that theory but nobody has ever managed to do that, it's deduction by elimination

Both are possibilities, and there isn't evidence of either

As for Smithman, he could exist in either scenario

by Guest 03.11.13 14:05

StraightThinking wrote:
ProfessorPPlum wrote:We're back to the absurd logic of proving your imaginary god doesn't exist.
Straightthinking, I don't have to prove she didn't wander off. To propose the theory it's YOU that has to prove she did. End of discussion.
As usual, as soon as someone mentions M wandering off, someone else becomes aggressive, it's as if there's an element on here trying to distract us away from it

I don't respond to people in arguments declaring an end to the discussion when they haven't proved their own point

Wandering off doesn't need evidence to still be a possibility any more than the widely repeated but never demonstated theory of M dying in 5a does

Proving that she didn't wander off would be an end that theory but nobody has ever managed to do that, it's deduction by elimination

Both are possibilities, and there isn't evidence of either

As for Smithman, he could exist in either scenario

So are you saying Madeleine lifted the shutter and opened the window to wander off? Because we are told this is how it was when KM returned to the apartment. If she didn't/couldn't then why was the window open?

by DurhamGuy1967 03.11.13 14:06

StraightThinking wrote:
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

Taken from Martin Grimes report..."The cadaver dog "marks" an area of the garden immediately below the window" could she have fallen down the stone steps? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] .

by StraightThinking 03.11.13 14:14

candyfloss wrote:So are you saying Madeleine lifted the shutter and opened the window to wander off? Because we are told this is how it was when KM returned to the apartment. If she didn't/couldn't then why was the window open?

No CF, I said earlier that it's possible the patio door was accidentally left open/unlocked after one of the checks. Easily done if you're distracted, maybe your phone ringing, or a friend who happens to be passing? Nasty steps too, and Eddie indicated at the bottom of them. As far as the shutters and window are concerned, none of the reports can be relied upon because they weren't corroborated, none of us have any idea whether the window was open or not

by StraightThinking 03.11.13 14:19

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:Taken from Martin Grimes report..."The cadaver dog "marks" an area of the garden immediately below the window" could she have fallen down the stone steps? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] .

This was a very early theory, I reckon August 2007, simple and believable, yet it was abandoned in favour of far more elaborate versions of what might have happened. Why?

Note that Smithman could still have come into play even if this happened

by Guest 03.11.13 14:22

StraightThinking wrote:
candyfloss wrote:So are you saying Madeleine lifted the shutter and opened the window to wander off? Because we are told this is how it was when KM returned to the apartment. If she didn't/couldn't then why was the window open?
No CF, I said earlier that it's possible the patio door was accidentally left open/unlocked after one of the checks. Easily done if you're distracted, maybe your phone ringing, or a friend who happens to be passing? Nasty steps too, and Eddie indicated at the bottom of them. As far as the shutters and window are concerned, none of the reports can be relied upon because they weren't corroborated, none of us have any idea whether the window was open or not

Errr, KM said it was.

In an interview shown on BBC’s Crimewatch last night, along with a detailed reconstruction, Kate told how she heard a door slam when she went to check on her children.

She also felt curtains in the room “whoosh” and noticed an open window, raising the possibility she could have missed the abductor by moments.

Kate, 45, said that after returning to the flat she “stopped and listened in the living room for a bit”.

She went on: “It was all quiet but it caught my eye that the children’s door was quite far open.

“As I was just drawing it over, it was like it had been caught by a draught and it just slammed shut.

"I opened it a bit, I kind of looked into the room and I guess I was looking at Madeleine’s bed and I couldn’t make her out.”

Kate said the full horror suddenly dawned on her that Madeleine was missing – and “the panic kicked in”.

She added: “At that point the curtains, which were closed, kind of whooshed and I could see that the window had been pushed right open and the shutters were up.”

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

by StraightThinking 03.11.13 14:26

candyfloss wrote:Errr, KM said it was.
In an interview shown on BBC’s Crimewatch last night, along with a detailed reconstruction, Kate told how she heard a door slam when she went to check on her children.

Oh well, that's it all decided then. One involved person says something and it's gospel. Sorry everyone, the window was open and somebody carried her off. You are an experienced member of this forum, CF, and have doubtless been following this story for as long as I have. Are you having me on?

by Guest 03.11.13 14:31

StraightThinking wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Errr, KM said it was.
In an interview shown on BBC’s Crimewatch last night, along with a detailed reconstruction, Kate told how she heard a door slam when she went to check on her children.
Oh well, that's it all decided then. One involved person says something and it's gospel. Sorry everyone, the window was open and somebody carried her off. You are an experienced member of this forum, CF, and have doubtless been following this story for as long as I have. Are you having me on?

Oh I didn't realise you were being sarcastic re your comment. I read it differently now.

by DurhamGuy1967 03.11.13 14:35

StraightThinking wrote:
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:Taken from Martin Grimes report..."The cadaver dog "marks" an area of the garden immediately below the window" could she have fallen down the stone steps? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] .
This was a very early theory, I reckon August 2007, simple and believable, yet it was abandoned in favour of far more elaborate versions of what might have happened. Why?

Note that Smithman could still have come into play even if this happened

Something non parents should note is that 3-year-olds bounce pretty well. It would take one heck of a fall to badly hurt them or worse. I'm not sure a fall from the couch would do it, however if there is precedence I'm happy to accept it.

by jeanmonroe 03.11.13 14:46

Maybe GM was taking her down the stairs when JW 'turns up'
Puts here down in 'garden'
Quickly out of gate, to chat with JW.
Tanner already arranged to be in 'place' on 'lookout' duty.
She could hardly 'about turn' after leaving the OC,and onto street, not KNOWING whether JW had 'seen' her, could she?
After JW has 'gone' back to his apartment.
GM 'retrieves' from garden and 'hides' somewhere else
Gerry and DP go out again at 4:00am on the 4th May and move again?

DID JW actually 'see' GM re-enter the OC after his 'chat'?
DID anyone other than their 'pact of silence' friends SEE GM 'return' to the tapas when he said he did?

by DurhamGuy1967 03.11.13 15:02

jeanmonroe wrote:Maybe GM was taking her down the stairs when JW 'turns up'
Puts here down in 'garden'
Quickly out of gate, to chat with JW.
Tanner already arranged to be in 'place' on 'lookout' duty.
She could hardly 'about turn' after leaving the OC,and onto street, not KNOWING whether JW had 'seen' her, could she?
After JW has 'gone' back to his apartment.
GM 'retrieves' from garden and 'hides' somewhere else
Gerry and DP go out again at 4:00am on the 4th May and move again?

DID JW actually 'see' GM re-enter the OC after his 'chat'?
DID anyone other than their 'pact of silence' friends SEE GM 'return' to the tapas when he said he did?

JW thought he was behaving normally , and he had spent time with GM during the week. Wouldn't you just hide for a minute?
He could have been on his way to discover Madeline.

from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
21:20, Executive Chef A.E.G.F.P. heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few metres away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared.

At around 21:40, he left the restaurant passing through the same esplanade where moments before, he had seen the same table occupied by the three couples, empty, who had left in the meanwhile various items, principally clothing. He was told by his colleagues that the child who had disappeared was a child of one of those couples;

by galena 03.11.13 15:38

StraightThinking wrote:
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

Sorry I find it very hard to believe that they would have taken the risk with the PJ involved and lots of people out searching. Smuggle the body out, smuggle it back in and then be faced with the task of smuggling it out all over again. Way way too much risk, for a group which seem to be extremely risk averse (as you would expect with doctors).

Latest topics