The flowerbed ...

I know I keep going on about it, but I think it's indicative. A couple to stay in apartment 5a before the McCanns were interviewed and here is part of the testimony of one:

Nothing was taken from our apartment and I did not notice anything suspect during our stay. I noticed that the gardeners would work on the garden close to the apartment�pool-side�three mornings (page 2) during our stay. The cleaning personnel would come very day.

So the flowerbed was regularly tended to. Just where the hell did that scent Eddie reacted to come from?

I was not aware of that flowerbed. Good question.

honestbroker wrote:I know I keep going on about it, but I think it's indicative. A couple to stay in apartment 5a before the McCanns were interviewed and here is part of the testimony of one:

Nothing was taken from our apartment and I did not notice anything suspect during our stay. I noticed that the gardeners would work on the garden close to the apartment�pool-side�three mornings (page 2) during our stay. The cleaning personnel would come very day.

So the flowerbed was regularly tended to. Just where the hell did that scent Eddie reacted to come from?

Hmmm. How astute of you to pick that up!

Does anyone know if any of the gardeners looked like bundleman?

Perhaps it was an organic fertiliser such as Blood and Bone, which may have contained pig carcass.

Sadie, I thought that too! I wonder if the gardeners were checked out? Wasn't there something to do with someone phoning up the PJ anonymously and tipping them off about a ?gardener ? handyman? He was questioned by the PJ and he told them that the person phoning them had a grudge against him and the Pj believed him and did not follow it up further. Apparently he was working right near the McCanns apartment previous to Madeleine's abduction.

Diane, good point, I did not think of that and I am aware of the fertilizer you mention too!

"Bone meal has been sterilized for sale to gardeners for as long as I have known.

Previous bans on use were related to its use as animal feed. Bone meal remains a valuable organic resource for gardeners not only a SHRUB fertilizer but for root crops, beans etc... "

http://www.the-organic-gardener.com/shrub-fertilizer.html

Another great post HB,I had forgotten about this!

So, I wonder, what was so interesting to a team of gardeners that they tended the flower bed this many days per week? Being a gardener myself, this seems a little excessive, if the bed was planted up with shrubs, this would be very low maintenance and certainly would not require the presence of a team of gardeners several times per week, this is very odd!

Is someone suggesting that the McCanns buried Madeleine in this flower bed? If so how on earth would they do this? In full view of the block of apartments they go and start digging a grave for their daughter and no one sees them? She then lays there and is the exhumed and taken to the beach and buried there for a while? Still no one sees them doing this, despite the fact they had the world and his wife peering over their shoulders? All this and no dogs, cats or other animals, strays, wild or domesticated did not detect the scent and thus ignored these graves?

Is Amaral for real?

Madeleine's heartbreaking disappearance must be one of the strangest mysteries of all time in that there are so few real clues or true sightings, in fact one could almost say there are 'no' clues whatsoever and the only possible credible sighting is that of Jane Tanners and that alone appears to have created even more of a dilema than it has resolved! For instance, was it really Madeleine being carried by this vaguely descriptive man or was it in fact another child being carried by his/her own father who for some reason or other feels too nervous to come forwards. As that seems so highly unlikely we must then assume it was almost certainly Madeleine. Assuming Jane Tanners description of the man is reasonably accurate I am inclined to think that judging by his casual dress, dark and unkempt appearance he was almost certainly a local person, probably Portuguese but possibly Spanish. Also from my recollection of JT's drawing he was fairly lightly dressed which also suggests him being local and having the use of a vehicle due to the fact that local people walking around after dark in West coastal areas tend to be heavier dressed to protect them against the windy, cooler evenings. As for any other clues indicating what has happened to little Madeleine or where she might be there just doesn't seem to be any, the whole situation is a complete and totally frustrating mystery!
Alroy.

Royal wrote:Madeleine's heartbreaking disappearance must be one of the strangest mysteries of all time in that there are so few real clues or true sightings, in fact one could almost say there are 'no' clues whatsoever and the only possible credible sighting is that of Jane Tanners and that alone appears to have created even more of a dilema than it has resolved! For instance, was it really Madeleine being carried by this vaguely descriptive man or was it in fact another child being carried by his/her own father who for some reason or other feels too nervous to come forwards. As that seems so highly unlikely we must then assume it was almost certainly Madeleine. Assuming Jane Tanners description of the man is reasonably accurate I am inclined to think that judging by his casual dress, dark and unkempt appearance he was almost certainly a local person, probably Portuguese but possibly Spanish. Also from my recollection of JT's drawing he was fairly lightly dressed which also suggests him being local and having the use of a vehicle due to the fact that local people walking around after dark in West coastal areas tend to be heavier dressed to protect them against the windy, cooler evenings. As for any other clues indicating what has happened to little Madeleine or where she might be there just doesn't seem to be any, the whole situation is a complete and totally frustrating mystery!
Alroy.

For reasons I will attempt to expand when I have the time, I'm going to disagree with you on this one, Royal.

I think the key witness is Martin Smith and his family. Gerry has alibis coming out of his ears placing him elsewhere than the spot of the Smith family sighting, and the time of Kate's alert and the two times appear (roughly) to coincide. A Russian kitchen worker from the Tapas Restaurant has it that Gerry left the restaurant, returned and then Kate left, to return a short while after to announce that Madeleine had gone, with Gerry at the Restaurant. But he doesn't state a time. Meanwhile, we have a fitness instructor, working at the Tapas bar as an extra job, who testifies to seeing Gerry rushing around the children's play area of the Tapas restaurant looking for Madeleine. He offered to go to the Millenium restaurant to raise the alarm there. He states the time of these events as between 2130 and 2200. He was a part of the Leicestershire interviews, so his testimony must have been thought important.And lo! An employee from the Millenium restaurant has it that she became aware of Madeleine's disappearance at shortly after 2200.

Another alibi for Gerry is the redoubtable Mrs Fenn! She records that Gerry and Kate returned together from the Tapas restaurant, by her estimation, just before 2230, and the two spoke.

Now here's the most striking bit. The details are not recorded in the files, but they are in Amaral's book. Apparently the child the Smith family was wearing pink pyjamas of the type Madeleine was known to be wearing (according to Amaral, who also has the Smith family leaving Kelly's bar at 2155 and seeing this man carrying the child 5 mintues later.)

Hmmmmmmmmmm!

Hi there Honest John, thanks for having obviously read my post, the thing is I am not sure in what way you disagree with my comments, you don't appear to be disagreeing with me?There are of course plenty of sightings of actual Witnesses and statements made by the Ocean club and restaurant staff, the Smiths, Gerry and many others but not one shred of useful evidence as to the fate and whereabouts of Madeleine. Discounting the Anti's crazy and evil minded rantings there has been an endless number of ideas and theories about Madeleines abduction most of which I have either supported disputed or have been put forward myself for open debate, and yet other than Jane Tanners specific sighting of the assumed abductor there has been nothing to indicate

Hi there Honest John, thanks for having obviously read my post, the thing is I am not sure in what way you disagree with my comments, you don't appear to be disagreeing with me?There are of course plenty of sightings of actual Witnesses and statements made by the Ocean club and restaurant staff, the Smiths, Gerry and many others but not one shred of useful evidence as to the fate and whereabouts of Madeleine. Discounting the Anti's crazy and evil minded rantings there has been an endless number of ideas and theories about Madeleines abduction most of which I have either supported disputed or have been put forward myself for open debate, and yet other than Jane Tanners specific sighting of the assumed abductor there has been nothing to indicate

Royal, where I disagree with you is that while, like you, I believe Jane Tanner to be an honest witness, I don't believe she saw Madeleine's abductor. That is because of the disparity in timings between her sighting and that of the Smith family's. Jane Tanner saw the man she describes at 2115 and the Smiths the man they describe at 2200. It seems inconceivable that Madeleine's abductor would have been swanning around the back alleys of Praia da Luz for three quarters of an hour and I'm inclined (I think) to go with later sighting.

Thanks HB I have been calling the attention to that possibility all along. Not doubting Jane, but very unlikely it was Madeleine just please think about the timeline. And the Smith testimony (the first one, still back in May or June) was, I believe, given to police in Britain/NIreland, and it was clearly stated he identified a girl, hair by the shoulder, transported upright in pink pyjamas no blanket, arms along the body.

OK So we are going with the Smith family sighting.

BUT why didnt the person JT saw come out and say who they were to help with the investigation. They must have known who they were and when because this has been the biggest thing to ever happen in PDL, and it wouldnt have mattered if that person left PDL that night, they would have known about it.

There is another alternative. And that is that the person JT saw and the one the Smith's saw were the same person, and that he 'stopped off' somewhere. I can speculate on a few reasons for the stop. Some I dont care to mention here but I can give one reasonable explanation.

But I doubt that the person was walking the street with Madeleine. More likely had gone to ground (either to hide, to get further instructions, to meet with someone to get approval for the child, etc etc) before going any further. And if she was not the right girl (or not wanted) then he may have killed her, or just simply let her go. After the meeting/stopover ??? the person had the go ahead, or instruction, or whatever was needed to continue and then after making sure is all clear (no Police or parents running around) walked to the road where the Smith's seen them. This could have been on the way to the beach, or to the carpark, or even to a house/apartment for the night, for moving in the morning.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the person was wandering the street between when JT saw them and when the Smith's saw them. the road that the man was on when JT saw them does lead to private residences, in fact it leads to RM's house. So while not saying that RM's house was the destination (after all, there is no evidence to suggest she was ever there) but it could be someone else's residence, or the garden of a residence that was the destination to get confirmation, instruction, whatever ????. I tend to dismiss a predatory paedophile although I cannot completely discount it, as I would have thought that if a garden/house was used, then why risk carrying her through the streets after that, just dump and get the hell out of dodge. It would appear to me more organised than that.

I also dont discount Gerry's version of the door being opened even after he had closed it. This also helps with the timing.

I dont beleive that I am making the events fit my ideas either. But if this were organised, and there is someone behind this, then it is very possible that a final, up close examination was required before going any further. And also do not dimiss the possibility that the man carrying the child was only a small part and didnt know the rest, so had to be told where to take the child. This would mean that if he was caught, the rest would be unknown and not implicated. If we are dealing with professionals, and locals, then they would take such precautions.

Hi there again HB, like yourself, I can only assess things from what I have heard and seen and accept there is always plenty of room for error. However, was the descriptive drawing of a rather scruffy man carrying a child not given by Jane Tanner but by the Smiths? I am almost certain she described the man she saw and the child he was carrying wearing pink pyjamas but am not whether that drawing was hers or not but have always thought that was so. As regards the timings of the sightings you seem to be far better informed than myself on that subject, but does not that create a contradition between the sightings and the timings? In my earlier post I was not specifically using Jane Tanners evidence to confirm my observations as neither her sighting nor that of the Smiths give any indication of the fate and whereabouts of Madeleine after she had been taken from her bed, and this is the point I was making. After the sightings by both the Smiths and Jane Tanner there is absolutely nothing, a void, as if she has just disappeared into thin air. There have been a great many unconfirmed sightings world wide which on every occasion must have added unbearable disapointment and heartache to the parents. All the theories, guess work and witness statements are not proven facts that throw any useful light on what has turned out to be a complete mystery. Apart from the actual kidnapper/s, there are probably one or two others who know what has happened to Madeleine but because of their knowledge or brief involvement in the case are afraid to come forward and speak out for fear of criminal proceedings or even an act of reprisal. Is there perhaps some way of offering this person both protection and imunity from prosecution in exchange for their crucial information? Is fear preventing him or her from coming forward to claim the reward money? Who ever that person is he/she must come forward now and put an end to all this worry, sadness and
misery.
Alroy.

dianeh wrote:OK So we are going with the Smith family sighting.

BUT why didnt the person JT saw come out and say who they were to help with the investigation. They must have known who they were and when because this has been the biggest thing to ever happen in PDL, and it wouldnt have mattered if that person left PDL that night, they would have known about it.

There is another alternative. And that is that the person JT saw and the one the Smith's saw were the same person, and that he 'stopped off' somewhere. I can speculate on a few reasons for the stop. Some I dont care to mention here but I can give one reasonable explanation.

But I doubt that the person was walking the street with Madeleine. More likely had gone to ground (either to hide, to get further instructions, to meet with someone to get approval for the child, etc etc) before going any further. And if she was not the right girl (or not wanted) then he may have killed her, or just simply let her go. After the meeting/stopover ??? the person had the go ahead, or instruction, or whatever was needed to continue and then after making sure is all clear (no Police or parents running around) walked to the road where the Smith's seen them. This could have been on the way to the beach, or to the carpark, or even to a house/apartment for the night, for moving in the morning.

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that the person was wandering the street between when JT saw them and when the Smith's saw them. the road that the man was on when JT saw them does lead to private residences, in fact it leads to RM's house. So while not saying that RM's house was the destination (after all, there is no evidence to suggest she was ever there) but it could be someone else's residence, or the garden of a residence that was the destination to get confirmation, instruction, whatever ????. I tend to dismiss a predatory paedophile although I cannot completely discount it, as I would have thought that if a garden/house was used, then why risk carrying her through the streets after that, just dump and get the hell out of dodge. It would appear to me more organised than that.

I also dont discount Gerry's version of the door being opened even after he had closed it. This also helps with the timing.

I dont beleive that I am making the events fit my ideas either. But if this were organised, and there is someone behind this, then it is very possible that a final, up close examination was required before going any further. And also do not dimiss the possibility that the man carrying the child was only a small part and didnt know the rest, so had to be told where to take the child. This would mean that if he was caught, the rest would be unknown and not implicated. If we are dealing with professionals, and locals, then they would take such precautions.

I tend to agree with the ideas of most of you. I especially think, like dianeh, that it was professional. The only thing I would add is the possibility that bundleman came to the corner expecting a getaway car to arrive (see last paragraph) and pick them up.

When he reached the pickup corner, I wonder if he was surprised to see JT coming up towards him and NO pick-up car, so he carried on walking (purposefully) in the same direction as he had come from.

I then think he might have melted into the shadows between buildings with Madeleine, until JT had returned to the Tapas bar, or until he felt it was safe to double back. The Smiths sighting was in the opposite direction to the way JT saw him going and about 20-25 minutes walk from there - (but I am only guaging this from a Google Earth map, and I could be out). Somewhere, somebody said that the Smiths saw the man with a little girl at 9.45pm. Are we sure that it was 10.00pm?

If it was 10.00pm, then it seems most likely that the stop off at a house/appartment idea is correct, or even a big loop around the back of the town to keep away from people, before heading South again.


So there are at least 3 possibilities:

1. That he visited a house/appartment and found that he was not welcome, or the people were out, or where an inspection to see that he had the correct child took place
   
2. He skulked in the shadows until JT had gone out of sight/or returned to the Tapas restaurant before doubling back
   
3. In order to avoid meeting people he made a fairly big detour around the back of PdL before going South along the quiet R d'Escola (spelling?) where he met the Smiths.
   

I have always thought that it is likely that a watcher/pickup man was sitting in a vehicle on the small car park almost opposite 'reception'. He was possibly giving instructions via mobile? as he saw people coming and going.
I have always thought (possibly wrongly) that Gerry and Jez were on the same side of the road as he was and were hidden by high walls from his vision. I have thought that he started to pull out, to pick up, and saw JT and then Gerry talking with Jez, so failed the pick up.

I think everyone here could be right in one way or another!

• JT did in fact see Madeleine being carried away.
  
• Her time lines were correct, she had something to judge her times by.
  
• Martin Smith ALSO saw the same man carrying Madeleine
  
• He is mistaken about the time
  
• Or the man hid somewhere, if he is a local, he would know where hiding places are.
  
• As the man IS local he obviously has a house/villa/apartment and he took Madeleine there.

The latter being the case, there are three possibilities why he would do this

1. The obvious, which I am not going to mention as it is unnecessary.
   
2. He panicked
   
3. Or it was an organised abduction and he had to stop off for a while to wait for someone to collect Madeleine.

So I believe, between us here we have managed to pinpoint that there could very well be at least two firm eye witness accounts of Madeleine be taken away.

Goncalo in his infinite wisdom as managed to rubbish JT's statement in favour of Martin Smith's statement. Martin Smith's statement better fits what Amaral 'chooses' to believe! He appears not to have given any thought as to why there could very well be a time discrepancy between the two sightings.

My question is this, how many other eye witness accounts has Amaral discarded to the bin that we do NOT know about?

This I believe is where the McCanns cold case detectives will play a major part in discovering where Madeleine is. I believe not only do they have these expert detectives, they also have former spooks! These people will remain anonymous for obvious reasons, but they have ways of getting information, ways that none of us know about!

I think we will discover where Madeleine is and I am even more inclined now to think that she is alive somewhere.
I have a feeling that something very big is going to break in this case very very soon.

Someone or some people who live in and around Praia Da Luz, know exactly what happned to Madeleine, why she was taken and where she is now. They can run but they cannot hide, they will be found and they will talk (FALA!).

I agree Rosie and hope that something is about to break.

I also had a bit of a brainwave about the garden as well. Well maybe not a brainwave, but a thought.

I proposed that the dog may have alerted to an organic fertilizer such as Blood and Bone. Now in this country Blood and Bone is nowhere near a smelly and disgusting as it was. It is treated (not sure what is done to it exactly) but it is only a shadow of its former stinky fertilizer.

But PDL is a rural area. The gardner may receive Blood and Bone from a local slaughterhouse (which is where we got it when I was a kid, it came on a truck to the farm, not in bags from the garden centre), which means it may not be as 'sterile' as it should be. It is also possible that it could come from a local farm, where someone who slaughters their own animals makes their own Blood and Bone. So it is just possible that the indication comes from ground up pig.

Plus, who knows what has been thrown in the garden by passing people, that may have been dug in or removed by the gardners but a residue of scent remains.

The garden scent is completely irrelevant. Because what is the theory??? that a dead Madeleine (dead for 2 hours at least) was placed on the garden for some length of time. I dont think so.