SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 112
There was no smith sighting of gerry. Not one smith at the time identified gerry, only one of them later said by body language alone it may have been gerry but they were far from certain and stressed they never identified the face and were not supported by the others in their party, and several other witnesses inc. MW staff put gerry elsewhere. It is untrue the smiths positively identified gerry..
There is a Smith sighting of Gerry, further a positive ID of Gerry carrying Madeleine.
This has been linked many, many times, as well you know.
No swabs have ever been identified as containing the dna of madeleine, no swabs that coudl have been the dna of madeleine were identified at an alert site. The only dna that was ever identified at an alert site was found to come from someone who was alive. So the logical explanation for your claims, is that they are incorrect and do not match up with the evidence.
If you have evidence that says the smiths positively identified gerry, that madeleine's dna was identified, that her dna was found at an alert site, and that the alert sites mean there was definitley a body there as opposed to grimes, harrisons, and ORs statements that the evrd alerted to bodily fluids from living donors then please provide it. TIA.
..
DNA does not change whether the donor is alive or dead, so that statement is false.
Please provide a link to your claim.
Tink,
The harrison report makes it clear that madeleine could not have been dumped in the sea or the beach by the mccanns given the witness timelines of when the mccanns were at the complex.
..
The Harrison Report is theory only. The timeline of the evening remains unclear. This is in the PJ report in no uncertain terms.
As for knowing if the patio doors were unlocked, the patio doors were of the sliding door variety that cannot be locked from the outside, so if gerry was seen to leave by the patio door then it was obvious to anyone watching they were unlocked.
..
Please explain why two caring and intelligent people would leave their children alone in an unlocked room?
so if the mccanns disposed of her body it was not at the beach or the sea, so it had to be somewhere else, somewhere the public could access and did not require digging materials. and whilst people might not notice a man carrying a child they tend to notice them burying or disposing of them.
..
He was noticed.
See: the Smiths.
as for the risks an abductor took - is this not the same with any abduction? Polly klass for one was taen from her home, jaycee lee dugaard was taken in broad daylgiht in full view, a little girl called jessica was taken from he rhome by a neighbour and dispite the fact she was over ten she did nto scream. Child abductors take risks, as taking a child is never going to be risk free.
Also sleeping children do not tend to wake easily - and someone watching the flat would have seen gerry only spend a couple of minutes there so had a good idea the children were fast asleep. Plus the abductor was not to know gerry was on the road chatting, and even if the children did scream the abductor could have gone by the time someone ran in. Lets face it, there is always the possibility it was another robbery and this one went wrong, and the reason madeleine was taken was because she woke up and the intruder paniked. It coudl very easily have gone wrong for the abductor, and if that had happened this would have been a one day wonder of a british couple catching an intruder in their holiday flat. The abductor took a risk like all child abductors and it paid off. Look at the case of katrice lee major, she disappeared in a space of less than two minutes in a busy supermarket and not one person saw a thing, yet she was abducted an the abductor took a huge risk in taking her and got away with it. recently a cas ein the UK, a little girl was seen getting into a vehicle and sadly so far has not been found. However there was a child witness and a man has been arrested and charged with her abduction and murder - the abductor took a huge risk in taking her like this, and if the police have charged the correct person it did not pay off in that the person was caught. Can you think of any crimes against a child that do not involve the risk of being caught?
..
You speak of other known abductions but there is no known abductor in this case, nor any evidence of one, no matter how many scenarios you borrow, so none of these cases are the remotest bit similar to Madeleine's disappearance, nor even relevant.
and the alarm was raised at ten, no-one claimed the abduction happened then, so people were being asked to think if they had seen anything suspicious that evening.
..
Not quite sure what you're trying to say here.
Donjeta the one hour comes from the fact that gerry was at tennis between six and seven thirty. Of course kate could have done it in the hour and a half gerry was away, but then the same problems arise - finding such a good hiding place on foot in a publicly accesssible place without one witness. Plus why hide the body if the mccanns were in the flat when it happened, children have accidents all the time why cover one up, and if there was an accident that was covered up then woudl nto blood have been spilt and cleaning products used, yet according to forensics this did not happen.
Why would there be blood spilt?
If Madeleine fell and broke her neck, she would appear perfect, as though she were asleep.
There is a very good reason why they would cover it up. They would lose their careers, their reputations, their friends, possibly their remaining children, their livliehoods.
That's what I call a motive...so would the prosecution if someone had enough guts to take it to court IMO.