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: j.rob on January 21, 2014, 04:09:24 PM
-
Kate repeatedly in her book suggests that she thinks the man the Smiths saw is the same man that Jane Tanner saw. Her inference is quite clear: she believes it is likely to be the same man and the man who allegedly abducted Madeleine.
On page 365 she ask 'who is the man Jane Tanner saw carrying a child, very probably Madeleine, away from our apartment?'
At the end of her book Kate lists some 'sightings' and writes: 'there are certainly common characteristics to suggest that some of these sightings, if not all, could be related.'
Her inference is clear.
The twins believe that: 'a naughty man had stolen their sister and now what we must do was find her.'
The McCanns and their friends at every turn do their utmost to promote the idea that Madeleine was abducted from her bed that night Despite not having a shred of evidence that this is what happened and despite (allegedly) not having seen what happened or had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.
They promote the theory that the abductor is likely to have been hanging around the resort in the days prior to the alleged abduction.
'This person who stole a little girl out of her bed and away from her family has been anonymous for far too long.'
Indeed.
The bogey-man theory. Believed by many to be not so much bogey as bogus.
One fact is clear: there is no evidence that Madeleine was unexpectedly stolen from her bed that night as part of an abduction that the McCanns and their friends had no prior knowledge of.
Is it true that the evening of the alleged abduction is one of the few evenings when all of the adults in the MCann party dined together? If true, that strikes me as quite a coincidence.
At 9.05 Gerry claims that he saw Madeleine asleep. At 9.30 Matt checks but conveniently does not look inside the apartment, so wouldn't know whether Madeleine was there or not. At 10pm Kate claims that Madeleine isn't in her bed and checks whether she has gone to the parents' bed. On discovering that this too is empty, a 'wave of panic' hits her. She then claims that when she sees the window in the children's room wide open and the shutters raised 'nausea, terror, disbelief, fear. Icy fear. Dear God, no! Please, no!'
'Madeleine has gone. Someone has taken her.'
Jane Tanner conveniently left the table to check on her children anat around 9.15 and claims that she saw a man carrying a child. Throughout the book, we are left in no doubt that the McCanns and their friends consider Jane Tanner's sighting as being hugely significant.
'There is little doubt in my mind then, nor is there now, that what Jane saw was Madeleine's abductor taking her away.'
I think that is fairly unequivocal.
Kate explains that she is 'grateful' someone had seen something.
You can see why the Portugese detectives didn't find the McCann version of events particularly believable. Sounds like the plot of a very bad 'whodunnit'.
-
Slot into Jane Tanner and the McCann's version of events for that evening the Smith sighting. Kate says she made a check of the apartment at 10pm that evening. Having looked around the apartment and finding Madeleine not in it, she then runs out back to the dinner table in what sounds like a blind panic and screaming: 'Madeleine's gone. Someone's taken her!' Presumably this was a few minutes after 10pm as it doesn't sound as though she looked long before making that claim
The man that the Smith's saw, and who Mr Smith thought bore a strong resemblance to Gerry McCann (after he saw him on TV carrying his son) was seen by the Smith family at 10pm. He was walking away from the resort complex and towards the beach. He avoided eye contact with the Smiths and I believe ignored a question asked by Mrs Smith who asked if the child was sleeping.
If we are to make a hypothesis that this was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine away from the apartment and the resort and towards the beach (and we have a reliable witness who thinks it was Gerry) then we need to look at the relevance of the timing. 10pm (or perhaps 10.05) is the time that Kate McCann raised the alarm. As the Smith sighting coincided closely with the time that the alarm was raised, surely it is vital to establish whether or not Gerry was at the dinner table at 10pm? Since shortly after 10pm all hell appears to have broken loose in the resort, with people running around all over the place, it would have been very chaotic.
The precise timings of the Smith sightings and Kate running out of the apartment screaming must be reasonably easy to establish. The Smiths were a group of nine and they were returning early as some of the group had an early start the next day. Therefore it is likely that they would have had an eye on their watches that evening.
There must be many witnesses to Kate running out of the apartment screaming. Staff at the restaurant, neighbours etc.
If it WAS Gerry carrying Madeleine towards the beach, then a whole new set of questions emerge.
-
I've always known that the only possible time for an insider to move/hide a body towards the beach in secret from the others was when the group had split up in those first searches. The perfect time to sneak off with nobody suspecting. Why did Smithman walk through the streets? Because he had no choice!
-
I've always known that the only possible time for an insider to move/hide a body towards the beach in secret from the others was when the group had split up in those first searches. The perfect time to sneak off with nobody suspecting. Why did Smithman walk through the streets? Because he had no choice!
He could only chose the darkest streets.
-
1390320564]
Kate repeatedly in her book suggests that she thinks the man the Smiths saw is the same man that Jane Tanner [/color]saw. Her inference is quite clear: she believes it is likely to be the same man and the man who allegedly abducted Madeleine.
On page 365 she ask 'who is the man Jane Tanner saw carrying a child, very probably Madeleine, away from our apartment?'
At the end of her book Kate lists some 'sightings' and writes: 'there are certainly common characteristics to suggest that some of these sightings, if not all, could be related.'
Her inference is clear.
The twins believe that: 'a naughty man had stolen their sister and now what we must do was find her.'
The McCanns and their friends at every turn do their utmost to promote the idea that Madeleine was abducted from her bed that night Despite not having a shred of evidence that this is what happened and despite (allegedly) not having seen what happened or had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.
They promote the theory that the abductor is likely to have been hanging around the resort in the days prior to the alleged abduction.
'This person who stole a little girl out of her bed and away from her family has been anonymous for far too long.'
Indeed.
The bogey-man theory. Believed by many to be not so much bogey as bogus.
One fact is clear: there is no evidence that Madeleine was unexpectedly stolen from her bed that night as part of an abduction that the McCanns and their friends had no prior knowledge of.
Is it true that the evening of the alleged abduction is one of the few evenings when all of the adults in the MCann party dined together? If true, that strikes me as quite a coincidence.
At 9.05 Gerry claims that he saw Madeleine asleep. At 9.30 Matt checks but conveniently does not look inside the apartment, so wouldn't know whether Madeleine was there or not. At 10pm Kate claims that Madeleine isn't in her bed and checks whether she has gone to the parents' bed. On discovering that this too is empty, a 'wave of panic' hits her. She then claims that when she sees the window in the children's room wide open and the shutters raised 'nausea, terror, disbelief, fear. Icy fear. Dear God, no! Please, no!'
'Madeleine has gone. Someone has taken her.'
Jane Tanner conveniently left the table to check on her children anat around 9.15 and claims that she saw a man carrying a child. Throughout the book, we are left in no doubt that the McCanns and their friends consider Jane Tanner's sighting as being hugely significant.
'There is little doubt in my mind then, nor is there now, that what Jane saw was Madeleine's abductor taking her away.'
I think that is fairly unequivocal.
Kate explains that she is 'grateful' someone had seen something.
You can see why the Portugese detectives didn't find the McCann version of events particularly believable. Sounds like the plot of a very bad 'whodunnit'.
you make this statement and provide no evidence to support it
-
Who knows why there was a forty-five-minute gap between the two sightings, or where this man might have been in between? I long ago stopped trying to come up with answers because I don’t think I need to. If the child was Madeleine – and in five years, no father has ever come forward to say it was him and his daughter – why would we assume he would be behaving normally or logically? There is nothing normal about stealing a little girl from her bed, so why should his subsequent actions be predictable? The abductor would hardly have been expecting to see Jane walking towards him as he escaped, let alone have anticipated that Gerry would be standing talking round the corner. Whatever plan was in his mind, he might well have been forced by these near misses to change it pretty quickly. (Madeleine)
A man has come forward but he's not Smithman. I wonder why it took so long time to clear this man and why he never came forward earlier. That clever change (contradiction!) on the door position set up Tannerman as being the one and sent everyone spinning round and round lol. Amaral was right to ignore the contradictions of that sighting and to concentrate on the Real McCoy.
-
A man has come forward but he's not Smithman. I wonder why it took so long time to clear this man and why he never came forward earlier.
I don't wonder why it took so long time to eject Tannerman as the odd man out. I wonder why it took so long to SY to focus the projectors on Smithman. For a simple reason : Smithman's little girl matched Madeleine perfectly, though her pyjamas didn't fit her parent's description.
Between Tannerman's Eeyore pyjamas and Smithman's blond, white, 3/4 and long sleeve pyjamed girl, is there motive to hesitate ?
-
Why cant anythng ever in this case be clear, only confusing.....
Innocentman looks nothng like Tannerman in the sketch...short wavy dull hair opposed to longer chin length glossy black hair with straighteners used on it!
but I suppose sketches can be embellished!
Innocentman going in wrong direction
Fact remains SY have demolished this sighting as the probable abductor...and must have good reason to do so! And put the focus back as the probable abductor or person of interest squarely on Smithman?whch the the Mccanns have never really promoted, indeed, they are said it would be too expensive to do so, see Tmes article ref suppressed efits for 5 years thread here
is Innocentman Smithman? NO....he would have told police his movements that night, and also his childs pyjamas were nothing like the Smiths description
To answer the OP, yes the Mccanns passed off both sightings as the same man
Oh eta
If all that wasnt confused enough, Jane Tanner is alledged to have said creepy Cooperman mexican moustache man bore an 80 per cent resemblance to the man she saw...how could all three be the same person???
Not to mention the papers touted Hewlett as being the man in these sketches too...and wait for it...the Mail even went as far as suggesting Michaela, Murats now wife as being Tannerman! You couldnt make it up
@)(++(*
@)(++(*
Well someone did! If one works on the PJ principal there was no break in then all these dodgy geezers don't matter a rats ass. As I see it they serve only to try to prove the cops wrong. Well it worked sort of the first time so lets jump on the same band wagon again with the Met.
-
I don't wonder why it took so long time to eject Tannerman as the odd man out. I wonder why it took so long to SY to focus the projectors on Smithman. For a simple reason : Smithman's little girl matched Madeleine perfectly, though her pyjamas didn't fit her parent's description.
Between Tannerman's Eeyore pyjamas and Smithman's blond, white, 3/4 and long sleeve pyjamed girl, is there motive to hesitate ?
It's interesting to compare 1st and 2nd statements. The motive is simple, if you were involved then you know that Smithman was carrying Madeleine away and you would try to suppress him and Tannerman popping up was like striking gold. The discrepancies and pyjamas relate and point towards him while Smithman is sneaking away with it. MO put a major spanner in the works - the shutters weren't raised or window open when he did his check. That's how they knew Madeleine had been abducted because of the raised shutters and open window but that would mean Madeleine left after 9.30 which would rule Tannerman out as being the abductor. Now they have to try and explain that with an opportunist burglar who magically happened to appear 30 minutes after Tannerman but never entered the apartment via the window. When window evidence points to one person and no glove marks found. There's one interesting thing about the Tannerman sighting and that is the time it happened because Madeleine wasn't in the apartment when MO did his check at 9.30pm IMO.
-
The discrepancies and pyjamas relate and point towards him while Smithman is sneaking away with it.
On the topic of pyjamas, note that little Amelie called the Eeyore ones, supposed to be hers, "Oh ! Maddie's jamies..".
It says it all.
Madeleine had the other, the long sleeves pjs on. I guess the stain story was told in an attempt to make believe that Madeleine would, wanted or whatever use those Eeyore pjs on that night, therefore they had to be stainless.
Does somebody understand why they exhibited the Eeyore ones in Crimestoppers on the 4th of June, i.e one month after the disappearance ?
Did they suppose that the abductor forced Madeleine to keep those pjs on ?
-
you make this statement and provide no evidence to support it
Errr...sorry....can you supply evidence to support your statement ......(...what was your statement....exactly.....)
-
On the topic of pyjamas, note that little Amelie called the Eeyore ones, supposed to be hers, "Oh ! Maddie's jamies..".
It says it all.
Madeleine had the other, the long sleeves pjs on. I guess the stain story was told in an attempt to make believe that Madeleine would, wanted or whatever use those Eeyore pjs on that night, therefore they had to be stainless.
Does somebody understand why they exhibited the Eeyore ones in Crimestoppers on the 4th of June, i.e one month after the disappearance ?
Did they suppose that the abductor forced Madeleine to keep those pjs on ?
Anne, the creativity of your thoughts with regard to those pyjamas never ceases to amaze!
In answer to the question, someone could have seen Madeleine, still in pyjamas, shortly after she disappeared.
Or someone could have seen or found the pyjamas somewhere.
It would definitely be worth exhibiting them at that point.
-
It would definitely be worth exhibiting them at that point.
Creativity ?
It might have been worth exhibiting a copy of the pjs that Madeleine was really wearing. It shouldn't have been very difficult, the PJ managed to buy some pjs in Mothercare or whatever in order to analyse the fibres.
They say the truth comes out of the children's mouths. As kids are spontaneous, it sometimes does. That's how I understand "Oh, Maddie's pyjamas" !
-
The Smith sighting for me was the most viable.
I have always believed if someone did take the child they did so about 9.45, which would match the Smith sightings....
-
Errr...sorry....can you supply evidence to support your statement ......(...what was your statement....exactly.....)
You make this statement......Kate repeatedly in her book suggests that she thinks the man the Smiths saw is the same man that Jane Tanner saw...
In the OT you use the much stronger word "ASSERTS"
Where does kate assert they are the same man...she doesn't
BTW assert means to state something confidently and forcefully
-
Okay, seeing as you obviously love getting into little battles over semantics.........throughout her book Kate would like us to believe that Tannerman and Smithman are the same person.
She makes comments such as 'the similarities speak for themselves'. I didn't write the title of this thread....I would say that Kate 'suggests' that they are the same person. And if you look at the passages in the book where she brings up these two sightings, you will see that she would like the reader to think that they are likely to be the same person.
In any case, this is my opinion based on my understanding of the book. My opinion is simply my opinion. However, for those people who are interested in forming an opinion on the subject, they can read the book and make up their own minds.
In my opinion, the abductor would not be wandering around the resort with an abducted child for that length of time. Now that Tannerman has been ruled out that leaves the Smith sighting which still has not been ruled out as far as I am aware.
-
Okay, seeing as you obviously love getting into little battles over semantics.........throughout her book Kate would like us to believe that Tannerman and Smithman are the same person.
She makes comments such as 'the similarities speak for themselves'. I didn't write the title of this thread....I would say that Kate 'suggests' that they are the same person. And if you look at the passages in the book where she brings up these two sightings, you will see that she would like the reader to think that they are likely to be the same person.
In any case, this is my opinion based on my understanding of the book. My opinion is simply my opinion. However, for those people who are interested in forming an opinion on the subject, they can read the book and make up their own minds.
In my opinion, the abductor would not be wandering around the resort with an abducted child for that length of time. Now that Tannerman has been ruled out that leaves the Smith sighting which still has not been ruled out as far as I am aware.
It's ridiculous IMO to suggest that Kate would NOT think they could both be the same person. When you think of all the different heights, shapes and sizes, different clothing, hair colouring, style, build and age groups there are - then the two descriptions of both the man and child are remarkably close to one another.
No-one knows what happened to Madeleine after she was abducted. She may well have been in a car within seconds of being taken and was long gone before the alarm was raised. There are several different possible scenarios - wandering around the resort is only one of them.
-
Okay, seeing as you obviously love getting into little battles over semantics.........throughout her book Kate would like us to believe that Tannerman and Smithman are the same person.
She makes comments such as 'the similarities speak for themselves'. I didn't write the title of this thread....I would say that Kate 'suggests' that they are the same person. And if you look at the passages in the book where she brings up these two sightings, you will see that she would like the reader to think that they are likely to be the same person.
In any case, this is my opinion based on my understanding of the book. My opinion is simply my opinion. However, for those people who are interested in forming an opinion on the subject, they can read the book and make up their own minds.
In my opinion, the abductor would not be wandering around the resort with an abducted child for that length of time. Now that Tannerman has been ruled out that leaves the Smith sighting which still has not been ruled out as far as I am aware.
Its not about semantics..its about telling the truth...statements like this that are false are later posted as facts.
-
Why wouldn't or shouldn't she think they are related
Someone nicked her kid and there are sightings of a man carry a sleeping child
2 sightings not that far apart
It's not a issue at all
-
Its not about semantics..its about telling the truth...statements like this that are false are later posted as facts.
O arbiter of truth which statement(s) are untrue?
-
O arbiter of truth which statement(s) are untrue?
read the recent posts..its all there
-
read the recent posts..its all there
Yeeee haaaa Davel and The Strawmen ride again.
-
Yeeee haaaa Davel and The Strawmen ride again.
if you base your theories on lies you will never get to the truth.....the title of this thread is a lie
-
if you base your theories on lies you will never get to the truth.....the title of this thread is a lie
-
if you base your theories on lies you will never get to the truth.....the title of this thread is a lie
Best take that up with Admin and the Mods then chief.
-
It's ridiculous IMO to suggest that Kate would NOT think they could both be the same person. When you think of all the different heights, shapes and sizes, different clothing, hair colouring, style, build and age groups there are - then the two descriptions of both the man and child are remarkably close to one another.
No-one knows what happened to Madeleine after she was abducted. She may well have been in a car within seconds of being taken and was long gone before the alarm was raised. There are several different possible scenarios - wandering around the resort is only one of them.
I don't think anyone has suggested that it was 'ridiculous' for Kate to consider it possible that the man Jane Tanner saw, and the man the Smith family saw were one and the same
What has always struck me as odd, though, is that the McCanns never seem to have considered the possibility that the man Jane Tanner saw, and the man the Smith family saw were different men
Did I miss that ?
DID the McCanns ever speak about the possibility that the man Jane saw, and the man the Smiths saw may have been different men ... and that, consequently, each of those sightings should be treated as independent of the other ( each being equally important in their own right )
Did the McCanns ever do that ?
-
I don't think anyone has suggested that it was 'ridiculous' for Kate to consider it possible that the man Jane Tanner saw, and the man the Smith family saw were one and the same
What has always struck me as odd, though, is that the McCanns never seem to have considered the possibility that the man Jane Tanner saw, and the man the Smith family saw were different men
Did I miss that ?
DID the McCanns ever speak about the possibility that the man Jane saw, and the man the Smiths saw may have been different men ... and that, consequently, each of those sightings should be treated as independent of the other ( each being equally important in their own right )
Did the McCanns ever do that ?
?{)(**
They would have been real forcados, those who face the bull and seize him by the horns !
You have to admit that they were more passive than what you suggest.
They thought that ignoring Smithman was secure. At least for a certain time.
When they learnt that the Portuguese were filming a documentary inspired by GA, they couldn't ignore Smithman anymore. Knowing that only very few people had and would read the PJ files, they used the same actor, same child, same way of carrying in Agostinho da Silva and Escola Primaria. And that was it ! Smithmann ended providing Tannerman with all that the second lacked of, mainly a little blond girl of 3/4.
-
?{)(**
They would have been real forcados, those who face the bull and seize him by the horns !
You have to admit that they were more passive than what you suggest.
They thought that ignoring Smithman was secure. At least for a certain time.
When they learnt that the Portuguese were filming a documentary inspired by GA, they couldn't ignore Smithman anymore. Knowing that only very few people had and would read the PJ files, they used the same actor, same child, same way of carrying in Agostinho da Silva and Escola Primaria. And that was it ! Smithmann ended providing Tannerman with all that the second lacked of, mainly a little blond girl of 3/4.
Yes, ironic that in this way Smithman coroborrated Jane Tanner's sighting . McCann and Amaral aspirations collided.
-
Yes, ironic that in this way Smithman coroborrated Jane Tanner's sighting . McCann and Amaral aspirations collided.
Only for ignorant people, SH, people kept ignorant of the Smith sighting by the media. Why do you think that only a local Irish newspaper told about the Smith sighting and, as you said, of the likely last sighting of Madeleine ever ?
Even the Portuguese haven't heard of the Smiths.
-
Returning to the opening post, I wonder if after six long years will Kate still consider that Tannerman and Smithman are the same?
-
I believe Kate made her position abundantly clear in her book Madeleine which by the way was most certainly at odds with what the Portuguese police believed and whats more, she knew it.
Some extracts from Madeleine.
We subsequently learned that less than fifty minutes after Jane’s sighting – when I had still to discover that Madeleine was missing – a family of nine from Ireland had also seen a man carrying a child, this time on Rua da Escola Primária, a few minutes’ walk from apartment 5A, heading towards Rua 25 de Abril. Their description was remarkably similar to Jane’s. The man was in his mid thirties, 1.75 to 1.8 metres tall and of slim to normal build. These witnesses, too, said this person didn’t look like a tourist. They couldn’t quite put their finger on why, but again they felt it might have been because of what he was wearing. They also mentioned cream or beige trousers. The child, a little girl of about four with medium-blonde hair, was lying with her head towards the man’s left shoulder. She was wearing light-coloured pyjamas, had nothing on her feet and there was no blanket over her. Although, like Jane, this family had taken this man and child for father and daughter, they commented that the man did not look comfortable carrying the child, as if he wasn’t used to it.
The police did not appear to feel that Jane’s sighting in Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva and the man and child reported by the Irish holidaymakers in Rua da Escola Primária were related. They seem to have concluded that these were in all likelihood two different men carrying two different children (if, they implied, these two men actually existed at all). The only reason for their scepticism appeared to be an unexplained time lapse between the two sightings. They didn’t dovetail perfectly. To me the similarities seem far more significant than any discrepancy in timing. Every time I read these independent statements in the files (and neither could have been influenced by the other, remember – Jane’s description had not been released to the public before the Irish witnesses made their statements), I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts. As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re stil coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.'
Who knows why there was a forty-five-minute gap between the two sightings, or where this man might have been in between? I long ago stopped trying to come up with answers because I don’t think I need to. If the child was Madeleine – and in four years, no father has ever come forward to say it was him and his daughter – why would we assume he would be behaving normally or logically? There is nothing normal about stealing a little girl from her bed, so why should his subsequent actions be predictable? The abductor would hardly have been expecting to see Jane walking towards him as he escaped, let alone have anticipated that Gerry would be standing talking round the corner. Whatever plan was in his mind, he might well have been forced by these near misses to change it pretty quickly.
SIGHTING ONE AND TWO
Witness One: Jane Tanner
Witness Two: Holidaymaker from Ireland
These two crucial sightings of a man carrying a child in the street, made around the time of Madeleine’s abduction on the night of 3 May 2007, have been discussed in detail in this book. The description of the man seen by Jane Tanner was eventually made public three weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance and an artist’s impression commissioned by our own investigative team was released in October 2007. Yet to this day no man has come forward to identify himself as the father, relative or family friend of the child in either case. Although the police appear to have considered these sightings to be unrelated on the basis of the forty-five-minute gap between them, the similarities speak for themselves.
Interesting that Kate refers to the "Holidaymaker from Ireland" and not the "Nine Holidaymakers from Ireland".
-
I believe Kate made her position abundantly clear in her book Madeleine which by the way was most certainly at odds with what the Portuguese police believed and whats more, she knew it.
Some extracts from Madeleine.
Interesting that Kate refers to the "Holidaymaker from Ireland" and not the "Nine Holidaymakers from Ireland".
She writes "a family of nine" and then "the witnesses"..
What "speaks for itself" to paraphrase her is her pretending that "the similarities speak for themselves."
-
Only for ignorant people, SH, people kept ignorant of the Smith sighting by the media. Why do you think that only a local Irish newspaper told about the Smith sighting and, as you said, of the likely last sighting of Madeleine ever ?
Even the Portuguese haven't heard of the Smiths.
Personally I am a big fan of "The Smiths",
'Stop me if you think that you've heard this one before' IMO Smithman was not out looking for 'Half a person' that night, he was though thinking 'Please,please,please let me get what I want'.
There was 'Panic', it wasn't his 'Girlfriend in a coma'...he knew where he was heading... 'Nowhere fast'.... so he didn't need to 'Ask' for directions.
Smithmans child did not look comfortable, maybe she was 'Still ill', he could have been struggling to carry her because 'Some girls are bigger than others'.
Anyway, 'I started something I couldn't finish', 'That joke isn't funny anymore' & 'I know it's over' said 'This charming man'.
-
Just been thinking about this and wondered if all the parents of the children in the crèche had been interviewed or had questionaires sent out to them and if they all replied and were eliminated, then the smithman could not have been coming from the creche .
This Could still be an innocent man though, with a child, who had no shoes on, 3/4, blonde and no mummy along with them ? Also as you said SH, surely Mum would persuade Dad to come forward to police.
He didn't answer the Smith family when they spoke, so possibly not an English speaker or he didn't want his face seen
-
Yes Smithman didn't speak to the family because it would possibly incriminate him and I bet he checked his watch to see what time it was when he passed them 8(0(* If they ID Smithman I will tell you the exact time of that sighting.
-
Yes Smithman didn't speak to the family because it would possibly incriminate him
Yes, but he turned himself suspect (second thought, the first was "rude person") by not answering or waving, very unnatural when you cross someone at night in the deserted street of a village.
Had he spoken, it could have been worse.
And may be he couldn't really wave because both his arms and hands were busy supporting the little girl.
-
Yes, but he turned himself suspect (second thought, the first was "rude person") by not answering or waving, very unnatural when you cross someone at night in the deserted street of a village.
Had he spoken, it could have been worse.
And may be he couldn't really wave because both his arms and hands were busy supporting the little girl.
Not even a nod just kept his head down. It's funny when you look at the times on the night and one have them down to the exact minute - not the normal 8.45 or 9.50 but down to the exact minute. Some can be explained checking time before leaving the table but not others unless you had a very good reason to do it - being that specific and overconfident could come back to haunt you.
-
A simple explanation why the man did not reply to the greeting of Mrs S might be if he is a Portuguese father walking home and he does not speak English.
-
Not even a nod just kept his head down.
Actually he turned slightly his head, meaning he didn't want any intromission. Had he said something, they might have forgotten (imo they remembered because he was "rude"), but of course he could have betrayed his identity, speaking, so he did well no to speak.
-
A simple explanation why the man did not reply to the greeting of Mrs S might be if he is a Portuguese father walking home and he does not speak English.
@)(++(*
-
Its not about semantics..its about telling the truth...statements like this that are false are later posted as facts.
Yes it would have been good if the parents and friends of a very young and vulnerable child had told the truth.....is that what you are saying?
-
Yes Smithman didn't speak to the family because it would possibly incriminate him and I bet he checked his watch to see what time it was when he passed them 8(0(* If they ID Smithman I will tell you the exact time of that sighting.
I seem to remember that exact time was determined to be 10:03, wasn't it ?
-
I seem to remember that exact time was determined to be 10:03, wasn't it ?
Yes, the exact moment that Kate was discovering that Madeleine was gone. If the abductor took her around 9.45/9.50pm he would have time to walk down to where he became Smithman at 10.00/10.03pm.
It took several days for the Smith family to report this. Are we really expected to believe an abductor could walk for this distance carrying a scantily clad youngster and not be seen by anyone else?
-
Yes it would have been good if the parents and friends of a very young and vulnerable child had told the truth.....is that what you are saying?
I don't think there is any evidence that they have not told the truth
-
Yes, the exact moment that Kate was discovering that Madeleine was gone.
No, Angelo, Mrs McCann didn't look at her watch.
This is likely the time, +/- a minute, when Smithman crossed the Smiths. He had to check his watch in order to have an alibi for that time, in case he would be suspected, don't you think ?
-
No, Angelo, Mrs McCann didn't look at her watch.
This is likely the time, +/- a minute, when Smithman crossed the Smiths. He had to check his watch in order to have an alibi for that time, in case he would be suspected, don't you think ?
Who?
-
Who?
Smithman. He's the last person seen with Madeleine (very likely). That's why DCI Redwood wants to find him.
-
Yes, the exact moment that Kate was discovering that Madeleine was gone. If the abductor took her around 9.45/9.50pm he would have time to walk down to where he became Smithman at 10.00/10.03pm.
It took several days for the Smith family to report this. Are we really expected to believe an abductor could walk for this distance carrying a scantily clad youngster and not be seen by anyone else?
EXACTLY. I find this sighting very odd.
The thing is they were not worried by it were they? Again its seeing someone in a holiday complex wouldnt you normally see people?
Why even would you take much notice of this sighting at the time. When you are on holiday and just coming out of a bar after drinking and enjoying yourself, your just chatting and whiling away the evening together. YOUR not expecting anything sinister to occur, and a man walking through a holiday town with a child would hardly deem to be sinister, as I am sure it was a regular site to see the dads collecting kids from creche and babysitters etc, as I expect mum is back in the apartment with other children etc.....
Why should this person acknowledge them in any way. Perhaps he was scared he might wake the child up?
No I would have given this sighting but a fleeting glance and carried on chatting and walking home.
So could this sighting be genuine? Well why not. People go on holiday they could live anywhere in the world even from the states why not. Perhaps they have never heard of the McCann case, I know of people shock horror who havent heard of her.
Also how observant are people really?
For example in my sitting room I have a large painting on one wall of the lavender fields in France. 2 people who visit me regular never noticed it lol, until months afterwards.....
We are not trained to be observant are we?
Thats why if you ask 6 people to look at one person for a fleeting moment ALL the descriptions will be different.
It takes a certain person who can remember things well....
No I think too much is made of either sighting for me neither ever made any sense.
I truly believe if the child was taken it was quickly through the front door, and off towards the old road.
Also another thing i find puzzling.
IF you have an intention of stealing a child from an apartment at night you would have some idea the child would be wearing flimsy nightware. Wouldnt you come prepared with blanket, or even have taken the blanket (pink) to keep the child warm.? Surely you would not just take a child out of the apartment in flimsy nightwear with the chances of her waking up.
No for me I think the case could be simple as someone knowing her, taking her willingly out of the apartment with the promise they were going to see mum and dad or similar, and wrapping the child warmly, and taking her off in a car and gone. MINUTES......it would take MINUTES....
I think she could have been gone AFTER McCanns first check, and I dont believe Oldfield actually looked inside the apartment.
-
I was going back over some old threads yesterday and came across this schematic diag of the tapas-9 checkers movements. As can be seen, all males (including David) were present at the tapas at 10pm and only Jane was missing.
(http://i.imgur.com/ob5SA2B.png)
-
Dianne Webster was the only one present at the tapas at 10pm.
-
I was going back over some old threads yesterday and came across this schematic diag of the tapas-9 checkers movements. As can be seen, all males (including David) were present at the tapas at 10pm and only Jane was missing.
(http://i.imgur.com/ob5SA2B.png)
I remember that thread, which evolved over many pages, and, with patience and effort John, brought us to an accurate a graphic as possible as to where the tapas group say they were throughout the evening
What is important to acknowledge, though, is that it is where the group SAY they were ... the timeline is based entirely and exclusively on their 'say so'
Two witness statements from independent sources ( the waiter who served their meal, and the cook who left through the restaurant on the way home from his shift ) presents a different picture
The waiter says two males left the table that night .... one for 15 minutes ( Russell O brien, as shown in the graph you've reproduced here ) .... and one for half an hour ( not shown in the graph at all )
The chef, who left through the restaurant when he had finished work for the night ( at 9.45pm ) , says that only Diane Webster was sat at the table at that point )
We must decide, therefore, whether we accept the tapas group version as being set in stone regardless of the fact that it is disputed by independent witnesses
-
Dianne Webster was the only one present at the tapas at 10pm.
Isn't it the other way around, Pathfinder?
One thing this graph illustrates is what an astonishing fact it would be if an abductor were to have taken Madeleine shortly after 9. This was during the only small chunk of time Gerry was in or near the apartment.
The long vista of Green belonging to Gerry represents the longest sitting, apparently, of all four mentioned.
-
I remember that thread, which evolved over many pages, and, with patience and effort John, brought us to an accurate a graphic as possible as to where the tapas group say they were throughout the evening
What is important to acknowledge, though, is that it is where the group SAY they were ... the timeline is based entirely and exclusively on their 'say so'
Two witness statements from independent sources ( the waiter who served their meal, and the cook who left through the restaurant on the way home from his shift ) presents a different picture
The waiter says two males left the table that night .... one for 15 minutes ( Russell O brien, as shown in the graph you've reproduced here ) .... and one for half an hour ( not shown in the graph at all )
The chef, who left through the restaurant when he had finished work for the night ( at 9.45pm ) , says that only Diane Webster was sat at the table at that point )
We must decide, therefore, whether we accept the tapas group version as being set in stone regardless of the fact that it is disputed by independent witnesses
And we can go from the tapas group statements for a better rough estimate.
1. Matt 9.50
2. Russ returns 9.45 waits 5 minutes for his steak and when he gets it Kate leaves around the same time according to him.
From the various statement accounts (I'm not including the McCann's it was 10pm mantra). I can deduct that Kate left to check at the latest 9.52. From other group statements she isn't gone long - not 5 minutes. She raises the alarm at an estimate 9.55 and they all go running off to 5A. So Dianne would be the only one that could be present at the tapas at 10pm.
-
Isn't it the other way around, Pathfinder?
One thing this graph illustrates is what an astonishing fact it would be if an abductor were to have taken Madeleine shortly after 9. This was during the only small chunk of time Gerry was in or near the apartment.
The long vista of Green belonging to Gerry represents the longest sitting, apparently, of all four mentioned.
That's my hypothesis. There's 2 exact times down to the minute said on this night. You can say it was a Revelation Moment 8)--))
1. 9.04
2. 10.03
They are both connected and show me how Madeleine disappeared.
-
Dianne Webster was the only one present at the tapas at 10pm.
The only sitting at the table one. the waiter Ricardo reports that Mr Oldfield and Mr Payne were inspecting the pool.
-
it appears that the McCanns STILL assert that Tannerman and Smithman may be one and the same
That's the point, only the first one allows an alibi.
-
That's my hypothesis. There's 2 exact times down to the minute said on this night. You can say it was a Revelation Moment 8)--))
1. 9.04
2. 10.03
They are both connected and show me how Madeleine disappeared.
It is certainly based on much more solid ground than the from bed fantasy.
-
That's the point, only the first one allows an alibi.
But to continue suggesting that Jane saw the abductor ... when it flies in the face, and contradicts the conclusion of a two and a half year investigation by Scotland Yard that has cost seven million pounds ?
-
The thing is they were not worried by it were they? Again its seeing someone in a holiday complex wouldnt you normally see people?
Exactly. A father carrying his sleeping child back home. Just rude and clumsy. Nothing more.
-
But to continue suggesting that Jane saw the abductor ... when it flies in the face, and contradicts the conclusion of a two and a half year investigation by Scotland Yard that has cost seven million pounds ?
DCI Redwood could have used the PJ final report to knock down Tannerman.
Lawyers wouldn't let him do that.
He tried it hard, but he had to be politically correct.
-
It is certainly based on much more solid ground than the from bed fantasy.
I need to get my alibi sorted for those 2 exact times so I remember these times at all costs!
-
I need to get my alibi sorted for those 2 exact times so I remember these times at all costs!
For security reasons looking at the watch was needed but releasing the exact time was an error that would have made Columbo say Oh, uh, one more thing...
-
For security reasons looking at the watch was needed but releasing the exact time was an error that would have made Columbo say Oh, uh, one more thing...
8((()*/
-
The Smith sighting may well prove to be (yet another) red herring. If it WAS ...... ........... carrying Madeleine somewhere it was a remarkably risky journey. The chances of someone spotting them was quite high and their identities were not concealed.
Still, I suppose with all hell breaking loose in the resort, it might have been a reasonable time to scuttle away, while the focus was all in and around the apartment. And I suppose if the abductor was supposed to have struck at around 9.15pm that would place Madeleine far away from the resort by the time the police were called. Hence, presumably, Kate's comment on page 90 of her book: 'Gerry told us afterwards that he he'd asked about deploying helicopters and heat-detecting equipment in the search.'
If the police were to give credence to the McCann version of events, the alleged abductor, having struck at 9.15pm could be very far away from the resort by the time the police were called and started searching.
The police were called at 10.40pm and arrived 15 minutes later. So, if we follow the McCann version of events. the abductor had had from 915pm until 10.55pm to escape with Madeleine. That's almost an hour and three quarters. And of course, even if the police believed the McCann version of events, they would still have to take statements etc before resuming a search, leading to further delay.
On the other hand, IF the person the Smiths spotted was ....... carrying Madeleine, ......... would have left the resort at a time of heightened chaos to take Madeleine wherever he was planning to take her. He would then have been able to return while the resort was still in chaos and well before the police were called at 10.40pm.
-
SY should go straight to the source i.e. Smithman and the time of that sighting at 10.03pm IMO. Even though that exact time stood out, it also corroborates with this statement.
"At around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
When asked, she responds that she knows the time they left because her brother and father decided to go home earlier that night." (Aoife Smith)
Personal Description:
(1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal complexion, normal physique, around 1.70/1.75 metres in height. At the time she saw him, she did see his face but now cannot remember. She believes that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember any tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not look at his ears. His hair was thick, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.
The trousers he was wearing were smooth straight-legged trousers, light beige in colour, of a cotton type material, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons and without any patterns.
She did not see what he was wearing on his top half as the child covered almost completely what he was wearing and she had no idea of what it could have been.
As regards his shoes she cannot say anything because she did not see them.
The individual's gait was normal, being able to distinguish it between walking quickly and running. He did not appear tired and walked normally while carrying the child.
(2) As regards the child the witness says she was female because she had long smooth hair, neck length, fair/brown in colour.
She is certain that the child was about four years old because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and same height.
She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position on the front of the individual’s body. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her own body and were not wrapped around the individual who was carrying her. She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin, having the feeling that it was white.
There was nothing covering the child, a comforter/blanket or any other piece of clothing but because of the girl’s position, she only saw her from the back.
She was wearing light coloured trousers, white or light pink-coloured that may have been pyjamas. She does not remember if they were patterned as it was dark. The material was fine and could have been cotton.
She also had a light coloured top, with long sleeves. She did not see well because the individual had his arms around the child. She is not sure if the child's top was the same colour as her trousers, saying only that it was light in colour.
When questioned regarding her shoes, she responds that she did not remember seeing any, not knowing if she was wearing shoes or not.
When asked to tell the truth, she states that what she has just stated is the truth of the facts, according to her knowledge.
(Aoife Smith)
-
SY should go straight to the source i.e. Smithman
They're trying to eliminate him as the abductor or Madeleine as the abducted, apparently.
-
They're trying to eliminate him as the abductor or Madeleine as the abducted, apparently.
I can't believe how any police force in the world could rule Smithman out like Horrocks did 8-)(--) Amaral got it right that it was Smithman and was taken off the case lol and here we are coming upto 7 years later. Even Redwood said this has been going on too long so they must know too!
He was seen between walking quickly and running. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her own body and were not wrapped around the individual.
8-)(--)
Yeah Smithman really looks like an innocent man in desperate action running for his life 8-)(--)
-
I can't believe how any police force in the world could rule Smithman out like Horrocks did 8-)(--) Amaral got it right that it was Smithman and was taken off the case lol and here we are coming upto 7 years later. Even Redwood said this has been going on too long so they must know too!
He was seen between walking quickly and running. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her own body and were not wrapped around the individual.
8-)(--)
Yeah Smithman really looks like an innocent man in desperate action running for his life 8-)(--)
When you greet someone who doesn't answer, don't deduce s/he's rude, s/he might have a strong motive for keeping mute.
-
But to continue suggesting that Jane saw the abductor ... when it flies in the face, and contradicts the conclusion of a two and a half year investigation by Scotland Yard that has cost seven million pounds ?
I re-read Mr McCann's speech to the Chamber of Commons Commission and his speech to the International Bar Association in Madrid. He always speaks of abduction, establishing it as a fact without a doubt, in spite of the AG report. It's therefore obvious who has always been leading the investigation. It went on with the review (wasn't it a McCann resquest ?) up to the day when DCI Redwood disconnected Smithman from Tannerman, alias Alibiman.
The best is certainly to maintain a low profile for a while, avoiding to publicise Smithman and mainly to associate him with a blond, white, inert little girl of 3/4. As they'll never identify him, "it will be fine" !
-
Check out the Tapas bar waiters' accounts of who was at the table that evening. In particular the Russian waitress Starikova. Her statement says that Gerry McCann left the table for about half an hour (Smithman sighting?). Then returned to the table. Then Kate left (the 10pm 'check'. After which everyone left 'except an elderly lady.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm
It the witness accounts are reliable (and there are a lot of them so they can't ALL be wrong) then reports of Madeleine going missing started earlier than 10pm.
We KNOW that Gerry McCann was near the apartment at 9.15pm (ish - not sure how precise the timings were from Jeremy Wilkins) as he had a conversation with Jeremy Wilkins who was trying to get his child to sleep in a buggy.
Gerry then returns to the dinner table. There are reports of Matt doing a check at 21.30pm but he did not enter the apartment so we have no idea whether Madeleine was in there at the time.
Kate gets up and does the final'check' and then raises the alarm. she claims this was at 10pm but witness reports give the timing as earlier - some even timing it before Matt's alleged 9.30pm 'check'.
Okay. So, you could say that the Jeremy Wilkins conversation was important to the McCanns as it placed Gerry around the resort on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance (as opposed to being absent for a long period of time which would raise suspicion). If the witness accounts are accurate then Matt's 9.30pm check either didn't happen or was added for other reasons - to convey the idea that the children were checked regularly, for instance. Or perhaps to confuse the issue with regards to timings. Or maybe to have Madeleine's disappearance separated from Gerry's check at 9pm.
If it was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine that the Smiths saw just before 10pm on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance, it is possible that the timing was designed to coincided with a period of maximum commotion and chaos. People running around here, there are everywhere.
This would account for Kate claiming in her book that she raised the alarm at 10pm.
The Matt 'check' is still odd, though. Was it meant to imply that an abductor 'stole' Madeleine between 9.30pm and 10pm? But if he didn't actually go into the apartment, then, theoretically, the alleged abduction could have taken place in the period of time between Gerry's check at 9pm and Kate's at 10pm.
Although, obviously, we have the Tannerman sighting which implies that the McCanns would like us to believe that the abductor struck at 9.15pm. This then implies that Matt's check was purely to buy time an facilitate Smithman. And Tannerman was a cover and took the search in the wrong direction, to the wrong people and at the wrong time.
-
Check out the Tapas bar waiters' accounts of who was at the table that evening. In particular the Russian waitress Starikova. Her statement says that Gerry McCann left the table for about half an hour (Smithman sighting?). Then returned to the table. Then Kate left (the 10pm 'check'. After which everyone left 'except an elderly lady.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm
It the witness accounts are reliable (and there are a lot of them so they can't ALL be wrong) then reports of Madeleine going missing started earlier than 10pm.
We KNOW that Gerry McCann was near the apartment at 9.15pm (ish - not sure how precise the timings were from Jeremy Wilkins) as he had a conversation with Jeremy Wilkins who was trying to get his child to sleep in a buggy.
Gerry then returns to the dinner table. There are reports of Matt doing a check at 21.30pm but he did not enter the apartment so we have no idea whether Madeleine was in there at the time.
Wrong again J.Rob. Matt did check at about 21.30, but he DEFINITELY entered the apartment. He saw the twins in their cots, he read the titles of some of the books on the shelf by the light of the lamp in the sitting room ... and he noticed a little light coming in via the window.
As shutters do not pass light thru them that indicates that the shutters were partially open. The abduction had taken place, it seems.
Kate gets up and does the final'check' and then raises the alarm. she claims this was at 10pm but witness reports give the timing as earlier - some even timing it before Matt's alleged 9.30pm 'check'.
Hahahaha. So who made a statement timing it earlier, even before Matts 9.30 check?
Okay. So, you could say that the Jeremy Wilkins conversation was important to the McCanns as it placed Gerry around the resort on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance (as opposed to being absent for a long period of time which would raise suspicion). If the witness accounts are accurate then Matt's 9.30pm check either didn't happen or was added for other reasons - to convey the idea that the children were checked regularly, for instance. Or perhaps to confuse the issue with regards to timings. Or maybe to have Madeleine's disappearance separated from Gerry's check at 9pm.
Jeez, j.rob what an evil imagination you have. How you are twisting things.
If it was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine that the Smiths saw just before 10pm on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance, it is possible that the timing was designed to coincided with a period of maximum commotion and chaos. People running around here, there are everywhere.
This would account for Kate claiming in her book that she raised the alarm at 10pm.
Hahahaha. Gerry timed it when everyone was around searching ... great logic, j.rob ...Hahahaha. You are joking, of course?
The Matt 'check' is still odd, though. Was it meant to imply that an abductor 'stole' Madeleine between 9.30pm and 10pm? But if he didn't actually go into the apartment, then, theoretically, the alleged abduction could have taken place in the period of time between Gerry's check at 9pm and Kate's at 10pm.
What's odd about it J.rob ? A half hourly check that he was doing on his own child, so he saved Kate getting up to do one, by doing hers too.
Although, obviously, we have the Tannerman sighting which implies that the McCanns would like us to believe that the abductor struck at 9.15pm. This then implies that Matt's check was purely to buy time an facilitate Smithman. And Tannerman was a cover and took the search in the wrong direction, to the wrong people and at the wrong time.
Erm? .... Vivid imagination again j.rob. All these things that in your mind imply other things.
Jeez! why not just believe the Statements of so many good people ?
You seem to see something sinister in every normal thing that happened and twist everything to suit your sinister thoughts.
Try the simple route through, j.rob.
Try believing the statements of the Tapas group, Jez Wilkins, and a number of waiters. They ring far more true than your concoctions.
-
Wrong again J.Rob. Matt did check at about 21.30, but he DEFINITELY entered the apartment. He saw the twins in their cots, he read the titles of some of the books on the shelf by the light of the lamp in the sitting room ... and he noticed a little light coming in via the window.
As shutters do not pass light thru them that indicates that the shutters were partially open. The abduction had taken place, it seems.
Hahahaha. So who made a statement timing it earlier, even before Matts 9.30 check?
Jeez, j.rob what an evil imagination you have. How you are twisting things.
Hahahaha. Gerry timed it when everyone was around searching ... great logic, j.rob ...Hahahaha. You are joking, of course?
What's odd about it J.rob ? A half hourly check that he was doing on his own child, so he saved Kate getting up to do one, by doing hers too.
Erm? .... Vivid imagination again j.rob. All these things that in your mind imply other things.
Jeez! why not just believe the Statements of so many good people ?
You seem to see something sinister in every normal thing that happened and twist everything to suit your sinister thoughts.
Try the simple route through, j.rob.
Try believing the statements of the Tapas group, Jez Wilkins, and a number of waiters. They ring far more true than your concoctions.
Please read earlier posts sadie.
Shutters do not shut out 100% of a light source.
I presume you have heard of refraction.
Meanwhile how do you know any light was on in the apartment ?
-
The Matt 'check' is still odd, though. Was it meant to imply that an abductor 'stole' Madeleine between 9.30pm and 10pm? But if he didn't actually go into the apartment, then, theoretically, the alleged abduction could have taken place in the period of time between Gerry's check at 9pm and Kate's at 10pm.
Mr Oldfield found the bedroom door "half open", in his first statement, exactly as Mr McCann said, adding "as usual"), at the same time in another room (both were interviewed in the morning).
Then Mrs McCann, on 4th of May afternoon, says she found the bedroom door fully open.
From those three statements of 4th of May, one would deduce that something happened after Mr Oldfield's visit.
But then Mr McCann changes his story on the 10th : he found the bedroom door more open that we had left it, i.e abnormally open. So what can one deduce ?
Police officers, in a case like this one where the witness changes his/her story every time s/he interviewed and where, moreover, all stories present incompatibilities, will select the first statement and stick to it.
One fact is interesting : Mr Oldfield, in his rog, certifies that the shutters, the window and the curtains in the MC bedroom were closed. Whether he saw them in this state or invented the whole story, his statement discredits totally not Tanneralibiman, but the McCanns' red shutters/window herring.