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

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? http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm .

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? http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm .

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.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-crimewatch-appeal-kidnapper-2371929#ixzz2janAHAzG

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? http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm .
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 http://www.mccannfiles.com/id229.html
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).

by StraightThinking 03.11.13 15:42

Nobody was out searching after 2am, and the police had departed by 3.30. And I haven't implicated anyone in particular

by chillyheat 03.11.13 15:45

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?

Im on your line of thought, however I believe Tanner was waiting for someone to arrive at that moment to take the body away. She panicked seeing GM and JW talking so immediately made up Tannerman.

by poster 03.11.13 15:46

candyfloss wrote:
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.

Just wanted to add, everyone says no-one else saw the open window, but this employee did
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm

am not stating any opinion on the matter.

by Guest 03.11.13 15:51

StraightThinking wrote:Nobody was out searching after 2am, and the police had departed by 3.30. And I haven't implicated anyone in particular

4 am it was. Here is Charlotte Penningtons statement. Others have said the same.

States that the searches carried out by the Ocean Club elements terminated at around 04H00 the next morning, 04 of May, 2007, with negative results;

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id70.html

by StraightThinking 03.11.13 15:54

thanks CF, I had a different time

Well then, the streets were quiet after 4

by StraightThinking 03.11.13 16:04

galena wrote: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

Although it is by far the most popular theory on here, the idea of of a giant conspiracy which involved smuggling a body out of 5a between 21.15 and 22.00 doesn't make sense. Why bother raising the alarm at all?

The only reason for K raising the alarm would be that she genuinely had no idea where M had gone

As Pat Brown says, M could have been removed in the middle of the night and the alarm raised the following morning if that's what they wanted to do

If Smithman is significant, he fits in with this in some other way

by thetruthbeknown 03.11.13 16:10

StraightThinking wrote:
galena wrote: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
Although it is by far the most popular theory on here, the idea of of a giant conspiracy which involved smuggling a body out of 5a between 21.15 and 22.00 doesn't make sense. Why bother raising the alarm at all?

The only reason for K raising the alarm would be that she genuinely had no idea where M had gone

As Pat Brown says, M could have been removed in the middle of the night and the alarm raised the following morning if that's what they wanted to do

If Smithman is significant, he fits in with this in some other way

Maybe because others nearby (for example Mrs Fenn) had noticed 'activity'..in fact I believe in Mrs Fenns statement she says she offered her phone to GM around 22.30 but he said the authorities had already been notified?

by Guest 03.11.13 16:17

poster wrote:Just wanted to add, everyone says no-one else saw the open window, but this employee did
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm

am not stating any opinion on the matter.

***
She's stating that she saw the window and shutters open, when she entered AFTER the alarm had been raised:

"She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding."

We also know, that only Kate's prints were found on the window and that Gerry had been opening the shutter to "proof" that it was easily possible ...

by DurhamGuy1967 03.11.13 16:18

StraightThinking wrote:
galena wrote: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
Although it is by far the most popular theory on here, the idea of of a giant conspiracy which involved smuggling a body out of 5a between 21.15 and 22.00 doesn't make sense. Why bother raising the alarm at all?

The only reason for K raising the alarm would be that she genuinely had no idea where M had gone

As Pat Brown says, M could have been removed in the middle of the night and the alarm raised the following morning if that's what they wanted to do

If Smithman is significant, he fits in with this in some other way

Good point , I had to think about that...Because it was already out there.....(from http://www.mccannfiles.com/id229.html)
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;

It would be inevitable that the police would be there that night.

by poster 03.11.13 16:47

Châtelaine wrote:
poster wrote:Just wanted to add, everyone says no-one else saw the open window, but this employee did
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm

am not stating any opinion on the matter.
***
She's stating that she saw the window and shutters open, when she entered AFTER the alarm had been raised:

"She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding."

We also know, that only Kate's prints were found on the window and that Gerry had been opening the shutter to "proof" that it was easily possible ...

I agree, it could have been Kate opening the window. It's just that I always read that no-one else saw the open shutters and window.

Log in for more topics