Sunday 9 August 2015

WHERE DID SMITHMAN HIDE THE BODY?



There are only a couple of options if it was you know who - he had only moments to get rid of the body and return to the group.  I don't think he would have had time to find an unfamiliar address, knock and/or fumble with keys etc.  Finding a secure location on the beach or on wasteland in the local vicinity would have caused the same problems with the time factor - unless a temporary 'hiding spot' was previously known.  Whichever way, you look at it, there were massive risks.  Once the alarm was raised searchers and dogs would be combing the area. 

Some might say, the McCanns were expecting the body to be found.  As early as 10.30pm Gerry was discussing paedophile gangs, and Kate was heard to say 'those f**king B'stards' have taken her'.  This could be interpreted as an explanation for the condition of the body and anything an autopsy might reveal.  The hiding place could not have been that secure, because the body was moved 3 weeks later - prior to the more intensive searches by the specialist team from the UK.  Again, huge risks were taken, more areas were contaminated with the smell of cadaver. 

The first burial place in my opinion was not premeditated, pre-planned or assisted in by anyone outside of the holiday group - if it had been the parents would not have been dropping hints about paedophile gangs and 'f**king B'stards.  The main agenda of the McCanns' campaign is to convince the world Madeleine is alive and well and being treated like a princess.  In those early hours I think,  there was a very real fear that her body would be found. 

There is of course the possibility that Smithman was rushing to meet someone, someone either in a car, or someone he could pass the body too, whose absence wouldn't be missed.  This explanation would have required outside assistance, perhaps from someone local or someone known to the group who lived nearby and who was willing to drop everything to rush to their aid.  I don't mean 'known' in the Tony Bennett sense, I mean someone who adores you enough to rush out in the night to help you hide your dead daughter's body and face several years in prison themselves.  It is quite a big 'ask'. 

In any event, whoever the abductor passed the body too, was not knowledgeable enough, or well connected enough, to hide the body in a permanent resting place. And of course, he too, like the original abductor, didn't have a car.  He couldn't have, because if he did, he would driven as far away from PDL with his cargo as he could and the question of moving the body again would not have arisen.  He most certainly would not have remained in the immediate vicinity digging a hole while a massive search was underway. 

However, going with this theory, you can see why the telephone calls and antenna signals are of vital importance.  Who did those first calls go to?  Had they been from the McCanns to Robert Murat for example, the case could have been wrapped up years ago.

I believe the body was hidden temporarily in the local vicinity (in panic) in a spot that could prove problematic if more intensive searches were carried out.  Moving the body was an incredibly risky thing to do -  they clearly did not have outside assistance, because they used their own hire car.  Had they been in league with the very well connected Robert Murat, alternate cars would I am sure, have been available. 

The McCanns are risk takers extraordinaire, they have come this far on a wing and a prayer, everything they have done has involved almighty risks.  Perhaps they truly believe they are the 'chosen ones', they certainly appear to be in the grip of the 'God Complex'.  Fate has favoured them, they have turned almost every negative into a positive. They lost they daughter, they became Ambassadors for children everywhere.  They were criticized by the Media, they shut the media up.  They turned a great big whopping lie into the truth.  That takes some balls. 

I think the most likely explanation is that the holiday party had become familiar with the areas around PDL during the course of their holiday.  In their runs and explorations, the chances are they came across a nook, a cranny, or a cave, that would perfectly fit their needs in the short term. A place remembered at a time of desperation, and a place one man could run too, spend seconds doing the deed, and return to the main stage in time for the curtains to rise.  And the excavations in the areas around Apartment 5A last summer would seem to support that theory.  The second burial place was of course the final one, one in which they had time to plan and a vehicle with which to go further afield. 

 
 
 
 
Note to Sykes:  You claim the money from the advertising on your site goes to the 'main owners' Forumotion.  An out and out lie!  Bloggers and forum owners have the option to have advertising or not.  The idea that you have advertising on your site for the financial benefit of a large, unknown corporation is absurd and you must be the only forum owner on the net who does that.  You have chosen to have advertising on your website, ergo, you have agreed to the conditions and you have physically added the gadgets to enable them.  You are fooling no-one, other than your fellow death dossier compilers on JATKY2 and Stop the Myths.  The amount may well be a pittance, but you are stealing it nonetheless.  The advertisers are attracted to your site based on the work you steal from others.  You are the lowest of the low in the blogger world and I hope, once people realise what you are doing that you receive the contempt you deserve.  
 
You have removed my Reluctant Dieter's blog and book excerpt, but you still have entire blogs that you have republished without my permission.  That is copyright theft.  As for my diet blog, it may well be of interest to your readers, but you didn't write it, did you?  And you certainly didn't ask my permission to put it on your website.
 
We bloggers put a lot of time and effort into our work in order to get 'hits' - for us it is a labour of love.  The only 'work' you do, is copying and pasting what we have written, and for this you are receiving advertising revenue.  You have even said in the past that you are putting my blogs on your website to prevent me from getting the 'hits', thereby of course, ensuring that the hits go to you.  By taking my blogs and my hits, you are stealing.  I am not mincing my words here, you are a thief and I am not going to tolerate it any longer.    



34 comments:

  1. Where did Smithman hide the body? totally lost here, I believe Smithman was a decoy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Everything you write is speculation. There isn't an "ounce" of research.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anything anyone writes about this case is speculation. I am not privy to the investigation, and nor are you, or indeed, even the McCanns themselves. We are all speculating.

      I do not lay out my research like a GCSE student in search of red ticks, that I leave that to others. I personally find other people's 'research' tedious, but if they feel they have to prove they have done the work, let them crack on.

      Delete
    2. "Anything anyone writes about this case is speculation"

      Wrong again - some people use known facts (ya know - the files and things) - you speculate and that is wrong.

      Delete
    3. I have read more about this case than you can begin to imagine 19:27, I merely sort the wheat from the chaff in order not to bore my readers. Something a certain other commentator should perhaps take on board.

      Delete
  3. "Kate was heard to say 'those f**king B'stards' have taken her'. "

    I presume you can provide a link to that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I presume you haven't read "Looking for Madeleine" by Summers and Swan.

      Delete
  4. 15:24. Do you really believe they had the time and means to do a decoy run as well as a real one?

    ReplyDelete
  5. 18:57. Google effing b's and Kate McCann and you should find it :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it is that easy - provide a link and stop blogging rubbish that you make up from your perverted online friends.

      You do realise that if you post things that purport to be facts then YOU should provide evidence.

      Delete
    2. Yeh, people don't tell me what I SHOULD do 19:30 - I follow my own moral guideless, not the demands of charmless twats like yourself.

      Delete
    3. 19:30 Are you calling Summers and Swan perverted online friends?

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. You still can't spell. Not publishing my comment then? No you can't can you? Because there can be no 'witty & withering' (in your own mind) comeback from you. And the above is correct. You write crap and are jealous that you haven't the brain. or imagination for proper research.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Calm down. You`re giving yourself away.

      Delete
  8. I didn't delete your comment, you did. Embarrassed maybe?

    Strange to get into such a frenzy over a spelling error lol, but methinks your real anger lies elsewhere. I always know when I hit the nail on the head, and it seems with this blog I have! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I admit that I am a pedantic old git (on second thoughts, not so much of the old) when it comes to spelling and punctuation - don't anyone dare use an apostrophe in plural nouns when I'm around - but I think that anyone who dismisses all of someone's blog for that reason needs to question their motives.

      Delete
  9. I thought the same about them thinking the body would be found when they cried paedophilia straight off for same reasons you've quoted,but then thought if that was the case why move her?

    ReplyDelete
  10. A good Writer is a good Researcher you and your ilk are nothing of the sort. Perhaps you should take a leaf out of the Summers & Swan books.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Summers and Swan's writing career is unlikely to recover after their unbelievably bad book on the McCann case. That's the funniest thing I've heard for a long time, Anonymous at 11.00.

      Delete
    2. I doubt he could have come up with a worse example Kathy, lol.

      Delete
  11. I personally believe that the key to what happened to her cadaver (as those awesome dogs would no doubt tell you if they could, definitively), is knowing exactly how she died.

    That's the one thing the duo's risk taking had going for them (as G so infamously alluded to), not knowing the how gave them ample opportunity, which they seized upon - how depraved and macabre was that?

    ReplyDelete
  12. There is a lot more of evidence one may think. how it was done in the very detail may be never come out without confession, But we know enough from evidence, meta-evidence and common sense: http://genreith.de/MMcC/doku.php?id=where_is_maddie#some_private_investigations

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think you are a million miles away Rosalinda in thinking they wanted the body found.
    I think it is fair to assume that the last thing McCanns would want is an autopsy on Madeleine. Even if Madeleine had died accidentally, post mortem lividity would have given the game away regarding time of death, which could range from hours to days prior to the balloon going up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies Himself, I had meant to reply to this earlier. I don't think the McCanns WANTED the body found, but I do think it was a very real fear on the night. They were not confident about the temporary hiding place they found and they were pointing the finger at paedophile gangs and F***ing B's, as if they half expected the body to found. As time went by they were relieved the body wasn't discovered, and they became more confident in their claims that Madeleine was alive and findable.

      The spoke in the wheel of course, was the intervention of the specialist search team from the UK. At that point they were panicked into moving the body using their own car, a huge risk, but one that enabled them to ensure the body would never be discovered.

      Delete
  14. There is so much pointing to a non accidental incident. The behaviour is a huge red flag, among other things. Who laughs their head off just a few days after a fatal accident? Who would smirk in interviews? Keep on jogging like nothing's happened?
    Sorry, but this cold behaviour is an indication of something far more sinister

    ReplyDelete
  15. I agree with himself,I also don't believe Gerry was carrying a dead child through the streets on the night the abduction was acted out,like many I believe she died before the 3rd and was well away from the crime scene and search area

    ReplyDelete
  16. The PJ spent millions of euros and came to the conclusion M was alive at 17.30 on Thursday 3rd May 07.

    The UK Police have spent even more and declared M was alive at 14.30 on Thursday 3rd May 07.

    The "world respected" BBC has spent loads of money telling us M was alive at 14.30 on Thursday 3rd May

    So even if M had died before this time, who do you think will investigate this? Does anyone seriously think all or any of the above would admit their stupidity and incompetence.

    Dream on.

    Madeleine died sometime after 17.30 on Thursday 3rd May the rest is speculation but there is nothing apart from personal opinion and bias which prevents Smithman being Gerry.

    There is an awful lot of people trying to shut this thought down.

    Now why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree with Lorraine, why would any person with nefarious motives carry a deceased/heavily sedated etc. child through a holiday resort, just before 10 pm?

    That's about the time for holidaymakers (esp. those with children) to head home from the various watering holes/restaurants in Luz, to to their holiday accomodation.

    Would a person with bad intentions not have waited until the very early hours of the morning - when the vast majority of residents/tourists would be tucked up in bed?

    It would have not taken a wrong 'un long to find out that at the time there were virtually no CCTV cameras around the centre of Luz.

    So a 'spiriting away' would logically have happened at say 2 am - not when the bars where emptying.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At 2 am the Macs would be in 5A with front door locked ,shutters down and patio door locked thereby an abductor couldnt get in and steal a child.

      The lights would be off and how would an abductor know which room to go to and wether K&G were asleep.

      So a non starter for the scam to work
      9-10 pm much better!

      Delete
    2. @ 0935

      1958 is on about carrying the child through the town (if that's what happened), not about the time leading up to that. Different subject altogether.

      Delete
  18. apols. 'were' emptying of course

    ReplyDelete
  19. Great blog cristobell I am not so sure the 3rd suspect wasnt involved in some way I think the PJ have been spot on to date and the fact that SY have also questioned him is highly suspisious. Besides that i think you are spot on about how the body disposal went down

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yes, great blog Cris - keep it going for as long as you can - screenshot everything that you post and all responses - I've noticed an aggressive clamp down on social media interaction in the last 8 weeks.

    The Guardian in particular - most lucid comments are erased within seconds. (They've outsourced their moderation btw)

    Telegraph - they won't even allow comments on most of their stuff now

    Establishment - either side of the Atlantic - wants 'Comment is Free' --- dead.

    If the Chinese can do this - at a flick of a switch, then Downing Street and Pennsylvania Avenue can do this in a heart beat..

    The great unwashed have just become too knowledgable.

    Paranoia - does not necessarily mean, they are not after you.

    Collect and save.

    ReplyDelete