Strange Witness Statements

[misty]

Going back to the eerily similar statements of the Smith family, what do you think the likelihood was of them, after 3 weeks
a) being able to produce an efit of the waiter/waitress who attended them at the Dolphin restaurant that night
b) being correctly able to describe the clothes each member of the group was wearing that night

[Wonderfulspam]

From the brainboxes in Fantasy Land.

'Back (patio) door

The patio door at the rear was unlocked and used by the McCanns and their friends to enter for child-checks.  There were walls and mature shrubbery which could have provided an intruder with cover so that he could make his way from the road to the apartment door unobserved (as well as hide until ready to make his move).'

Just ignore the evidence eh.

[pathfinder73]

"Had there been a warning note in the apartment, do we think the McCanns would have left the patio door unlocked on the night they went to the other side of the pool to have dinner away from their children? One would be tempted to think they would make sure everything was firmly locked up," Summers said.

Swann & Summers didn't rule out the possibility of the orderly abductor, no doubt the illuminati at the Yard haven't either.

Genius.

"I know they (McCanns) had been coming, using the front door, erm, which is the door with the key, to go in and check the children.

On the Thursday night, about, erm, you know, whether I would feel happy leaving, leaving a door unlocked, but that was the only time I'd heard Kate sort of almost saying, question whether they should do it or not." (FP)

And then Maddy disappeared. How extraordinary!

Some might say they're not suspects which translates as we don't want a circus whilst we're conducting our investigation ta very much  %£&)**#

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

[Wonderfulspam]

"I know they (McCanns) had been coming, using the front door, erm, which is the door with the key, to go in and check the children.

On the Thursday night, about, erm, you know, whether I would feel happy leaving, leaving a door unlocked, but that was the only time I'd heard Kate sort of almost saying, question whether they should do it or not." (FP)

And then Maddy disappeared. How extraordinary!

Some might say they're not suspects which translates as we don't want a circus whilst we're conducting our investigation ta very much  %£&)**#

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

Indeed, Most Extraordinary!

But just forget that bottom bit PF, Smithman doesn't exist.

[pathfinder73]

Indeed, Most Extraordinary!

But just forget that bottom bit PF, Smithman doesn't exist.

The mute doppelganger was seen in a hurry carrying a Maddy lookalike 200 metres away from the crime scene. Must be difficult for detectives to work out if that lead is worth following or not in light of suppressed efits

[Brietta]

Going back to the eerily similar statements of the Smith family, what do you think the likelihood was of them, after 3 weeks
a) being able to produce an efit of the waiter/waitress who attended them at the Dolphin restaurant that night
b) being correctly able to describe the clothes each member of the group was wearing that night

Wonder if any of the staff in Kelly's bar would have recognised an efit of any member of the Smith family? 

I doubt it very much as it seems the staff on duty on the night of the 3rd couldn't remember seeing them there at all ... despite the fact that a party of nine around 10:00pm would probably have had something memorable about them if only numbers.

[Wonderfulspam]

The mute doppelganger was seen in a hurry carrying a Maddy lookalike 200 metres away from the crime scene. Must be difficult for detectives to work out if that lead is worth following or not in light of suppressed efits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwVMsDIoULQ#t=317

It's the sighting that speaks for itself.

See Redwood can't stop smiling...

[ShiningInLuz]

Wonder if any of the staff in Kelly's bar would have recognised an efit of any member of the Smith family? 

I doubt it very much as it seems the staff on duty on the night of the 3rd couldn't remember seeing them there at all ... despite the fact that a party of nine around 10:00pm would probably have had something memorable about them if only numbers.

I believe only one member of staff was interviewed, and that was in Sep 2007, so some 4 months later.  Folks in Kelly's had no reason to believe it was connected to Madeleine until the Smith revelations were published.  I don't know the date, but it could not have been close to 3 May 2007, and after that, as Kelly's is usually busy, one night merges into another.

Kelly's is normally staffed by more than one person, so I suspect there is a source missing.

If the statement on file is accurate, the bar person interviewed was misled. In the sense that she was asked if she had seen the Smith's that night.

Despite knowing a lot about the case, and about the Smith sighting, I wouldn't recognise the Smiths if I bumped into them, so asking the question above does not help.

According to the statement the police did not say that the Smith party was 4 adults and 5 children - just did you see the Smiths.

After that, the police photocopied the receipts for the period of 8pm to midnight on 3rd May.  These show a very quiet night.  If they had done it the other way round, and said - your receipts show it was a very quiet night - do you remember a group of 9 people - the chances are they would have got more than 'don't remember' as an answer.

[Brietta]

I believe only one member of staff was interviewed, and that was in Sep 2007, so some 4 months later.  Folks in Kelly's had no reason to believe it was connected to Madeleine until the Smith revelations were published.  I don't know the date, but it could not have been close to 3 May 2007, and after that, as Kelly's is usually busy, one night merges into another.

Kelly's is normally staffed by more than one person, so I suspect there is a source missing.

If the statement on file is accurate, the bar person interviewed was misled. In the sense that she was asked if she had seen the Smith's that night.

Despite knowing a lot about the case, and about the Smith sighting, I wouldn't recognise the Smiths if I bumped into them, so asking the question above does not help.

According to the statement the police did not say that the Smith party was 4 adults and 5 children - just did you see the Smiths.

After that, the police photocopied the receipts for the period of 8pm to midnight on 3rd May.  These show a very quiet night.  If they had done it the other way round, and said - your receipts show it was a very quiet night - do you remember a group of 9 people - the chances are they would have got more than 'don't remember' as an answer.

I agree that questions could perhaps have been better framed for the member of staff interviewed ... perhaps that old canard of judicial secrecy might have been influencing the amount of information being given or perhaps an oversight.
The fact remains that at the time of the alleged Smith visit it was off season and as you say, not a busy time, so the correct question could have elicited a better answer.

I am surprised that the PJ did not ask for the names of all staff who were on duty on the 3rd for the purpose of interviewing them all.
The staff may not have known the purpose of the request ... although I think they may have been astute enough to guess ... but the PJ most certainly did.

With regard to the till receipts ... in what way would you consider them to be 'proof' of the Smith family visit?

IMO they prove nothing apart from recording the sale of some drinks, but as the Smiths did not have a corroborating receipt (highly unlikely unless claiming expenses, I know) they do not indicate the sale was to the Smiths.

Therefore there is no independent evidence that the Smiths were where they say they were at the time in question and as with all other timings, for example Smithman's alleged route, Gerry and Jes's meeting, Russell O'Brien going to do his check the lack of CCTV footage (none in Kelly's?) makes exact independent timing impossible.



 

[faithlilly]

No sign of the SY efits on either the official campaign website or the Madeleine Facebook page and now, what seems, a concentrated effort by the inner sanctum to discredit Smith sighting.

Interesting times ahead methinks.

[Alice Purjorick]

No sign of the SY efits on either the official campaign website or the Madeleine Facebook page and now, what seems, a concentrated effort by the inner sanctum to discredit Smith sighting.

Interesting times ahead methinks.

But they were in the Telegraph on line.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11078595/Madeleine-McCann-are-we-any-closer-to-knowing-the-truth.html

[Wonderfulspam]

No sign of the SY efits on either the official campaign website or the Madeleine Facebook page and now, what seems, a concentrated effort by the inner sanctum to discredit Smith sighting.

Interesting times ahead methinks.

The McCann's & their support group, it would appear, have never been especially keen on that sighting which speaks for it's self.....

...which speaks for it's self.

[Brietta]

You are telling me that there are McCann supporters who have claimed the McCanns are ALWAYS right and all other independent witnesses are always wrong??  If there are they must be in a very small minority.   Most McCann supporters understand that there are likely to be some inaccuracies and discrepancies in witness statements, whoever has given them.

A perfect illustration of your point is Carol Tranmer's realisation at her rogatory interview that she was in error over dates given in her original statement ... nothing deliberate ... nothing suspicious ... just human error.

If three or four individuals give concise unshakeable statements, all matching, all slotting one into the other with no discernible discrepancies ... I think that would be the time for suspicion.


**snip
CT'No.

DC1485'So that date is incorrect'

CT'Yes. It was in fact in April.

DC1485'April, this is it then'

CT'Yes, I should have read this.

DC1485'Yes.

CT'Or no, I don't know.

DC1485'It says here, Saturday, the 28th of May.

CT'It was the 28th of April because it was on the 3rd, Thursday, when we took my aunt to lunch.

CT'Yes and after we went to visit her on Sunday. We visited her on the 29th of April.

DC1485'And here it says May, thus this statement is incorrect, right'

CT'Yes of course.

DC1485'Good. Let us clarify the statement collected on the 8th of May, relative to the dates referred to.

CT'Yes, it was wrong, it was in April.

DC1485'In fact it should be Saturday, the 28th of April.

CT'Sure.

DC1485'This is correct, of course it was.

CT'I got confused when I read this.

DC1485'Yes, I would also get confused.

DC1485'Good, then in relation to the date, everything is now correct'

CT'Yes, yes.

DC1485'Yes, good. Relative to what you said happened on Thursday, your statement states that Thursday, the 3rd, you went to visit your aunt. Therefore, you saw her on Sunday' http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROL_TRANMER.htm

[Alice Purjorick]

The McCann's & their support group, it would appear, have never been especially keen on that sighting which speaks for it's self.....

...which speaks for it's self.

Snipped from the Telegraph article I posted a link to above.

Their [the Smiths]evidence was compelling, but it was only in October 2013 that two e-fit images of the man, compiled by police from descriptions given by Mr and Mrs Smith, were released by Scotland Yard to coincide with a BBC Crimewatch reconstruction of Madeleine’s disappearance. He remains a suspect.

There were also blind alleys. Jane Tanner, one of the tapas diners, told police that when she left the restaurant at 9.15pm to check on her own daughter, she saw a man carrying a small child, wearing pink pyjamas, in his arms.

For years afterwards, the mystery man would be a key suspect, if not the prime suspect, but in October 2013 the Metropolitan Police announced that a British holidaymaker who had been taking his daughter back to his apartment after picking her up from an evening crèche, had been identified as the man Miss Tanner had seen and ruled out of the inquiry.

[Alfred R Jones]

If you say so Alfie old boy 

Yes I do say so, and the fact that you are only able to LOL at me, rather than defend your faulty logic rather confirms that I am correct.