UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: AnneGuedes on January 17, 2014, 10:21:39 PM
-
- Members of the Smith family went over in May 2007 to do a reconstruction of their sighting.
No, they didn't come to do a reconstitution, but to testify.
They indicated the places where each of the 3 groups had crossed Smithman.
The situation in September was different. You don't need a picture, Carana. Smithman had a possibly identified figure. Reconstitute with him would have been useful.
-
No, they didn't come to do a reconstitution, but to testify.
They indicated the places where each of the 3 groups had crossed Smithman.
The situation in September was different. You don't need a picture, Carana. Smithman had a possibly identified figure. Reconstitute with him would have been useful.
They came to testify, yes, but also to show where each of them were when they saw Smithman. What would you call that, if not a reconstruction?
What Amaral wanted them to do in September seems to have been the equivalent of a one-person identity parade by watching a video that the Smiths had already seen and was the basis for the parents' doubt in the first place. It's not clear to me what the purpose was. He keeps forgetting that Martin was only 60-80% sure, his wife apparently also thought it could have been him, but none of the kids did... Who was he planning to bring over? Just Martin and his wife to say they were 60-80% sure all over again? Or the entire family when the kids had already disagreed?
-
They came to testify, yes, but also to show where each of them were when they saw Smithman. What would you call that, if not a reconstruction?
What Amaral wanted them to do in September seems to have been the equivalent of a one-person identity parade by watching a video that the Smiths had already seen and was the basis for the parents' doubt in the first place. It's not clear to me what the purpose was. He keeps forgetting that Martin was only 60-80% sure, his wife apparently also thought it could have been him, but none of the kids did... Who was he planning to bring over? Just Martin and his wife to say they were 60-80% sure all over again? Or the entire family when the kids had already disagreed?
Odds of 60-80% from an unbiased witness sound pretty good to me. Martin has allowed for the possibility of being mistaken, he has factored in that is it not sensible or realistic to be 100% certain about something one saw.
Given this, it is more than a little bit strange how Kate and Gerry and the team were pretty much 100% sure that Madeleine had been abducted from her bed by a stranger (and probably a paedophile).
And it was stranger too that they were pretty sure that the person that (only) Jane Tanner saw (and she is not necessarily an unbiased witnesses) was the person who abducted Madeleine. Throughout her book, Kate continues to give weight to Jane Tanner's sighting. At the end of the book she describes Jane Tanner's sighting as 'key' and suggests that the Smith sighting is likely to be the same person. This is despite a 45 minute gap which begs the question that the abductor must have been going round in circles for quite some time.
Perhaps he panicked.
-
They came to testify, yes, but also to show where each of them were when they saw Smithman. What would you call that, if not a reconstruction?
What Amaral wanted them to do in September seems to have been the equivalent of a one-person identity parade by watching a video that the Smiths had already seen and was the basis for the parents' doubt in the first place. It's not clear to me what the purpose was. He keeps forgetting that Martin was only 60-80% sure, his wife apparently also thought it could have been him, but none of the kids did... Who was he planning to bring over? Just Martin and his wife to say they were 60-80% sure all over again? Or the entire family when the kids had already disagreed?
The 3 Smiths, on the 26th of May, did no reconstitution. They just localized their position when these 3 crossed Smithman.
A reconstitution would be done at least with the 4 adults and the 2 teenagers, forming the groups as precisely as they were, at the same time of the night and from Kelly's on. Somebody would represent Smithman and the girl, the sound aspect is crucial. Where was Smithman when the first Smiths appeared on top of the steps, etc. That's how reconstitutions are done and this is why it's erroneous to translate it with "reconstruction". It has nothing to do with CW.
How do you know Gonçalo Amaral's plan ?
-
The 3 Smiths, on the 26th of May, did no reconstitution. They just localized their position when these 3 crossed Smithman.
A reconstitution would be done at least with the 4 adults and the 2 teenagers, forming the groups as precisely as they were, at the same time of the night and from Kelly's on. Somebody would represent Smithman and the girl, the sound aspect is crucial. Where was Smithman when the first Smiths appeared on top of the steps, etc. That's how reconstitutions are done and this is why it's erroneous to translate it with "reconstruction". It has nothing to do with CW.
How do you know Gonçalo Amaral's plan ?
The only plan Amaral had was nailing The McCanns. He talked about it incessantly for several years.
-
The 3 Smiths, on the 26th of May, did no reconstitution. They just localized their position when these 3 crossed Smithman.
A reconstitution would be done at least with the 4 adults and the 2 teenagers, forming the groups as precisely as they were, at the same time of the night and from Kelly's on. Somebody would represent Smithman and the girl, the sound aspect is crucial. Where was Smithman when the first Smiths appeared on top of the steps, etc. That's how reconstitutions are done and this is why it's erroneous to translate it with "reconstruction". It has nothing to do with CW.
How do you know Gonçalo Amaral's plan ?
This is so misleading as it misrepresents what Martin Smith actually said. He never said he was sure. And who are "they"? From the surrounding details, one could have the impression that the entire family were sure, which is not the case.
What evidence is there in the files that anything concrete had been done to get them over, yet again?
In Ireland, the Smiths are watching the BBC news, which is broadcasting the event. For them, it’s a shock: that person, they recognise him. That way of carrying his child, that way of walking…It’s the man they saw at around 10pm on May 3rd, with a little girl, who seemed to be deeply asleep, in his arms.
This image, brings back with a jolt, that of the man they encountered in the streets of Vila da Luz, on the evening of Madeleine’s disappearance. It’s as if the scene is repeating itself ….Mr Smith thinking he’s hallucinating, sees the same report on other channels, ITV and Sky News. From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt. Upset by the implications of this discovery, he alerts the police and waits to be called back by those in charge of the investigation.
When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, “sent,” the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat’s house, but west in the direction of the beach.
We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness. That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later. Meanwhile, rumours were to circulate and people not involved with the investigation would be made aware of the existence of this witness; someone allegedly even sought out contact with the family, without its being known to what end.
-
This is so misleading as it misrepresents what Martin Smith actually said. He never said he was sure. And who are "they"? From the surrounding details, one could have the impression that the entire family were sure, which is not the case.
What is "this" and "sure" is of what ?
Which "they" are you asking about ?
-
What evidence is there in the files that anything concrete had been done to get them over, yet again?
Have you found in the files the bill for the airplanes tickets that the PJ bought for the 3 Smiths in May ? What relevance does it have ?
-
What is "this" and "sure" is of what ?
Which "they" are you asking about ?
You are the one who mentioned "They" so who were you talking about?
Only Mr. Smith was 60 to 80 percent "Sure". sic. But if you want to believe what he supposedly said about what his wife said then you need to look at the laws of evidence. What a man says about what his wife said just won't wash.
That went out with the dark ages.
-
It seems the McCanns have not the right to be guilty.
How dare we assume otherwise. 8)-)))
-
There would be concrete evidence of the Irish witnesses being flown back in early October 2007, if Mr Amaral had not been removed and thereby prevented from doing that.
It was a very short time from when witness MS reported his identification, to when Mr Amaral was removed.
How many days between those two events, exactly I'm not sure, but it was not many.
-
You are the one who mentioned "They" so who were you talking about?
Only Mr. Smith was 60 to 80 percent "Sure". sic. But if you want to believe what he supposedly said about what his wife said then you need to look at the laws of evidence. What a man says about what his wife said just won't wash.
That went out with the dark ages.
What about what Jane Tanner said she saw? Why is that any more reliable? And why did the McCanns and their friends put so much weight on it. Jane Tanner is a much more biased witness than the Smiths as she is a close friend of the McCanns. The Smiths are not and it was only after Mr Smith saw Gerry McCann on TV coming off the plane holding his son that he was struck by the resemblance with the man he passed on the streets the night of Madeleine's disappearance.
-
This is so misleading as it misrepresents what Martin Smith actually said. He never said he was sure. And who are "they"? From the surrounding details, one could have the impression that the entire family were sure, which is not the case.
What evidence is there in the files that anything concrete had been done to get them over, yet again?
In Ireland, the Smiths are watching the BBC news, which is broadcasting the event. For them, it’s a shock: that person, they recognise him. That way of carrying his child, that way of walking…It’s the man they saw at around 10pm on May 3rd, with a little girl, who seemed to be deeply asleep, in his arms.
This image, brings back with a jolt, that of the man they encountered in the streets of Vila da Luz, on the evening of Madeleine’s disappearance. It’s as if the scene is repeating itself ….Mr Smith thinking he’s hallucinating, sees the same report on other channels, ITV and Sky News. From that moment, he is sure: the man they came across that night was Gerald McCann. Of that there is very little doubt. Upset by the implications of this discovery, he alerts the police and waits to be called back by those in charge of the investigation.
When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, “sent,” the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat’s house, but west in the direction of the beach.
We decide to get the Smiths back to the Algarve, for a formal identification of Gerry McCann - by means of televised images, certainly - direct confrontation being impossible - and possibly proceed to a reconstruction of the events of the night of May 3rd. The National Director of the Judiciary police agrees, the process is set in motion, all the details are sorted out; all that remains is to choose the hotel where they will be put up. But the Smiths were never to come back to Portugal. After my departure, the PJ were to change their minds. They asked the Irish police to proceed with interviewing the witness. That decision was to seriously delay the process since the Smiths were not interviewed until several months later. Meanwhile, rumours were to circulate and people not involved with the investigation would be made aware of the existence of this witness; someone allegedly even sought out contact with the family, without its being known to what end.
Whether or not the Smiths went back (and I believe it is in the PF files that they did - they both spent a day giving witness statements) this sighting is vital. It directly contradictions the only piece of 'evidence' the McCanns have ever managed to concoct about a mystery abductor - the Jane Tanner sighting.
The man who the Smiths saw is walking in the opposite direction. In the direction of the beach. He avoids eye contact. He is holding a child that answers the description of Madeleine and who appears 'deeply asleep'. I'm not surprised the McCanns wanted to 'bury' the significance of the Smith sighting. In her book Kate implies it is the same man that Jane Tanner saw which is absurd. Apart from the fact that the description is different, Madeleine's abduction would hardly have chosen to walk around the resort for carrying an abducted child for 45 minutes.
The McCanns really must think that everyone is stupid.
-
Odds of 60-80% from an unbiased witness sound pretty good to me. Martin has allowed for the possibility of being mistaken, he has factored in that is it not sensible or realistic to be 100% certain about something one saw.
Absolutely. He was conscious he wasn't, he couldn't be sure. He waited 3 days before going to the Gardai. He was more certain than uncertain, this is his message, take it or leave it.
-
The McCanns weren't the only ones to neglect the Smith multiple sighting.
The UK press ignored it totally in spite of being so keen to catch any information and spin it.
Paulo Rebelo followed GA's leads, but not this one.
The MP sent the rog letter concerning the Smith to the HO
The HO didn't send it back to the MP but forwarded it to the LC
The LC put it in the bin.
No conspiracy, no ! Though..
-
Have you found a paper trace of this? If so, could you enlighten me?
Why would the MP have sent a rog to the HO when the Smiths don't live in the UK?
Excellent question !
It's all in the Files, Carana. To be honest, I'm not sure about what the HO did with the rog letter concerning the Smiths. I just guess that the whole pack went to the LC, that had no authority neither on the Smiths nor on the Gardai. They possibly phoned the MP.
What I pretended to suggest is that nobody was interested in the Smiths !
-
Excellent question !
It's all in the Files, Carana. To be honest, I'm not sure about what the HO did with the rog letter concerning the Smiths. I just guess that the whole pack went to the LC, that had no authority neither on the Smiths nor on the Gardai. They possibly phoned the MP.
What I pretended to suggest is that nobody was interested in the Smiths !
I haven't even found a request to the HO concerning the Smiths. I was hoping that you had, even if it had been sent to the wrong jurisdiction.
When was Amaral supposed to have sent all these rogs?
-
Excellent question !
It's all in the Files, Carana. To be honest, I'm not sure about what the HO did with the rog letter concerning the Smiths. I just guess that the whole pack went to the LC, that had no authority neither on the Smiths nor on the Gardai. They possibly phoned the MP.
What I pretended to suggest is that nobody was interested in the Smiths !
I haven't found that. Could you show me where?
-
I haven't even found a request to the HO concerning the Smiths. I was hoping that you had, even if it had been sent to the wrong jurisdiction.
When was Amaral supposed to have sent all these rogs?
The rog sender is always the MP.
-
The rog sender is always the MP.
That would be in the files, wouldn't it, as you have said. Could you show me where a rog was sent to the UK Home Office, either during Amaral's mandate or even later concerning the Smiths?
I haven't found a trace of Amaral organising any rogs at all.... have you?
-
That would be in the files, wouldn't it, as you have said. Could you show me where a rog was sent to the UK Home Office, either during Amaral's mandate or even later concerning the Smiths?
I haven't found a trace of Amaral organising any rogs at all.... have you?
Amaral organized no rogs, that was during Rebelo's time. It started on the 9th of December.
The PJ discussed the questions and the inteviewed with the PR who made suggestions, then the PJ wrote down the questions and the PR corrected.
The letters were sent on the 7th of January (the process took almost a month, there was Xmas in the middle) to the HO through Eurojust. The HO got them on the 13th
It would have taken 6 days (instead of the 52 days it took) but...
the HO said it was the wrong route and sent them back to Eurojust. Eurojust, after analysing the situation, decided to send the letters back to the MP (1st of February).
On the 7th, the MP sent the letters back to the HO, this time using the route required by the HO. On the 20th the MP was about to lose patience. On the 27th, the HO accepted the letters.
20 days
I hope it helps.
-
From the PJ, files, the Smith testimony. The family testifies as to seeing a man carrying a child answering to the description of Madeleine at around 10pm on the evening she disappeared.
And again, members of the Smith family testify to the police following having seen Gerry McCann on TV, coming off the plane on his return from the Algarve and carrying his son.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
I would describe this as incredibly damning evidence against the McCanns. It also happened to be a large group of people who walked past someone who looked like Gerry that evening.
It speaks volumes about the Smith family, and the veracity of their testimony, that Kate and Gerry have not, for once, attempted to discredit those who have come up with incriminating evidence.
Kate obviously felt obliged to refer to it in her book, but gets around the loaded issue of it being incredibly incriminating evidence against the McCanns by claiming that the similarities between Jane Tanner's sighting and the Smith sighting (despite the 45 minute gap) 'speak for themselves'.
-
Amaral organized no rogs, that was during Rebelo's time. It started on the 9th of December.
The PJ discussed the questions and the inteviewed with the PR who made suggestions, then the PJ wrote down the questions and the PR corrected.
The letters were sent on the 7th of January (the process took almost a month, there was Xmas in the middle) to the HO through Eurojust. The HO got them on the 13th
It would have taken 6 days (instead of the 52 days it took) but...
the HO said it was the wrong route and sent them back to Eurojust. Eurojust, after analysing the situation, decided to send the letters back to the MP (1st of February).
On the 7th, the MP sent the letters back to the HO, this time using the route required by the HO. On the 20th the MP was about to lose patience. On the 27th, the HO accepted the letters.
20 days
I hope it helps.
Thanks, Anne.
Why was Amaral moaning about the lack of cooperation from the UK if he hadn't got the rogs organised during his 5 months on the case?
-
Thanks, Anne. (Was everything sent via Eurojust? Not sure.)
Anyway, why was Amaral moaning about the lack of cooperation from the UK if he hadn't got the rogs organised during his 5 months on the case?
I think that the letters were completed (they had time for this..) between the Eurojust episode and their final expedition through the juridical cooperation service of the (Portuguese) Foreign Office.
Gonçalo Amaral complained about informations (medical, bank) that they asked and never received. You can see the PJ letters and the refusal answers in the Files.
GA wanted to interview the Smiths again in Portugal, no need of a rog for that.
-
If Smith was correct and the man was Gerry McCann and he was carrying Madeleine who appeared to be in a deep sleep and wearing pyjamas, that would place him scurrying away from the resort towards the beach at almost exactly the same time that Kate entered the apartment, found Madeleine missing, and ran back to the restaurant where the adults in their party were eating.
It is interesting to overlay the Jane Tanner alleged sighting into this picture.
On page 76 of her book Madeleine, Kate explains that at around 9.15pm Jane had seen a man on Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva carrying a child who appeared to be asleep.
(My emphasis in bold.)
According to Kate's book: 'when I'd discovered that Madeleine was missing <ie at 10pm> she <Jane> had been in her apartment three doors along. Hearing the commotion, she had come out and discovered what was going on. Taking Fiona to one side, she told her how, after leaving the restaurant to make her first check <ie: allegedly at 9.15pm> on her children, and having passed Gerry and Jes talking on Rua Dr Gentil Martins, she had seen this man crossing the junction with Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva, then or fifteen feet in front of her, walking from left to fight. Obviously, at the time she had thought little of it: as far as any of us knew, Madeleine was asleep in her baed, and, having just seen Gerry, Jane was well aware that he had been in our apartment only a few minutes before. quite naturally, she'd assumed the man was a father with his child, perpahs on their way home from a creche. As soon as she heard about Madeleine's disappearance, everything fell in to place and she felt sick.'
This in my opinion looks like a very well-rehearsed attempt to create alibis for Gerry and place in firmly in the resort (as opposed to unaccounted for for a period of time which would look suspicious). On his return from 'the check' Gerry passes and has a chat with someone from his tennis group, Jes.
Jane Tanner just so happens to be out and about at this precise time, checking on her children at 9.15pm. In her statement to police she says she passed Gerry and Jes en route to do her apartment check. This creates a very clear alibi. On page 71 of her book Kate claims that there was subsequently some uncertainty about which side of the road Jes and Gerry were actually on, however she notes: ....exactly where they were standing is not crucial. What may be more important is that all three of them were there.
Why is it so important that all three were there? Well, apart from the question of establishing alibis, this is also when Tanner alleges she sees Madeleine's abductor - going in a different direction to the Smith sighting.
Jane Tanner was also, interestingly, back in her apartment when the commotion (over the alleged discovery of Madeleine's disappearance) broke out. Jane Tanner is certainly in key hot spots that night!
What strikes me as revealing is that when the commotion breaks out, Kate in her book claims that Jane takes Fiona to one side and having passed Gerry and Jes talking she sees the man who she believes may have abducted Madeleine.
The Jane Tanner's 'sighting' was only given significance, apparently, after the discovery of Madeleine's disappearance,, which can account for her having done nothing about it at the time (which would not be the case if it had been after the disappearance). It also places the time of the abduction (as far as the McCanns and their friends are concerned, at 9.15pm. This would mean that a potential abductor would have had a 45 minute head start (minimum) before the alarm was raised. And of course it means that, if the Smiths did see Gerry carrying Madeleine at 10pm, it would have been a time of maximum activity in the apartment and very immediate area, as the alarm had only just been called. Therefore Gerry might have got away with creeping away with Madeleine, were it not for the Smith family. In any case, it Tanner's sighting took the eye off the Smith sighting.
It is very telling to me that Jane Tanner is out and about around the resort and in and out of her apartment at both 9.15pm and again at 10pm. These are both critical times that evening, it seems.
-
I think that the letters were completed (they had time for this..) between the Eurojust episode and their final expedition through the juridical cooperation service of the (Portuguese) Foreign Office.
Gonçalo Amaral complained about informations (medical, bank) that they asked and never received. You can see the PJ letters and the refusal answers in the Files.
GA wanted to interview the Smiths again in Portugal, no need of a rog for that.
Who did he ask, besides phoning a certain Glenn Power on 4 May who wasn't even on the case?
A solvency check was done on the T9, which seems as if it was prior to the rogs, but he didn't read the bottom line, seemingly. For some unfathomable reason, he jumped to the conclusion that they didn't have any bank cards... which is not what the check was about.
He seems to have missed this bit:
All persons were checked by Economic Crime Unit under the supervision of DS John Wardle. There were no concerns and no notifications or concerns by any other financial institute.
Records of current bank accounts are not automatically held. They are recorded when and if required for credit checking purposes only.
-
All persons were checked by Economic Crime Unit under the supervision of DS John Wardle. There were no concerns and no notifications or concerns by any other financial institute.
Records of current bank accounts are not automatically held. They are recorded when and if required for credit checking purposes only.
Do you call that an answer ? No joined documents.
I've read many letters refusing informations with lots of justifications of course. When I have time, I'll look for them.