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: faithlilly on March 06, 2015, 12:15:57 PM
-
It has become apparent over the last few weeks that there are several members on this forum who don't believe that the Smiths saw the man with a child, a sighting that has been widely accepted by all investigators of the disappearance and the McCanns themselves, which they reported.
I'd be very interested in the reasoning behind their view as it seems to fly in the face of SY's own stance on the case.
19
-
It has become apparent over the last few weeks that there are several members on this forum who don't believe that the Smiths saw the man with a child, a sighting that has been widely accepted by all investigators of the disappearance and the McCanns themselves, which they reported.
I'd be very interested in the reasoning behind their view as it seems to fly in the face of SY's own stance on the case.
are you dreaming..I haven't seen any post suggesting the smiths didn't see a man with a child
-
It has become apparent over the last few weeks that there are several members on this forum who don't believe that the Smiths saw the man with a child, a sighting that has been widely accepted by all investigators of the disappearance and the McCanns themselves, which they reported.
I'd be very interested in the reasoning behind their view as it seems to fly in the face of SY's own stance on the case.
It would be impossible for a family of nine to invent such an encounter never mind go to the trouble to report it to their local Irish Garda station on their return from holiday. Had Tannerman exhibited the same concern and reported his presence to police on his return home then years of speculations could well have been avoided and police resources redirected accordingly.
-
are you dreaming..I haven't seen any post suggesting the smiths didn't see a man with a child
Shall we start with this quote from Brietta ?
"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. "
-
It would be impossible for a family of nine to invent such an encounter never mind go to the trouble to report it to their local Irish Garda station on their return from holiday. Had Tannerman exhibited the same concern and reported his presence to police on his return home then years of speculations could well have been avoided and police resources redirected accordingly.
Rumour has it he was in Darkest Peru with no means of communication from 2007 til 2013.
Although on a less frivolous tone it seems that since DCI Andy fragged "Tannerman the Abductor", the only game left in town is trashing the Smiths.
-
Martin Smith claimed the man he met that night was almost certainly Gerry McCann yet Gerry never saw fit to sue him over such an alleged defamation. Gonçalo Amaral never had the same luck so did the Blarney have some protection for Mr Smith, him being a Dubliner and Gerry being from Co Donegal and all that?
-
Rumour has it he was in Darkest Peru with no means of communication from 2007 til 2013.
Although on a less frivolous tone it seems that since DCI Andy fragged "Tannerman the Abductor", the only game left in town is trashing the Smiths.
The interesting question is why would you want to trash a sighting that SY think is of major importance ? Couple that with the (almost) disappearance of the efits from any McCann-sanctioned website and you could be forgiven for thinking that our esteemed couple and SY aren't exactly singing from the same hymn sheet.
-
Martin Smith claimed the man he met that night was almost certainly Gerry McCann yet Gerry never saw fit to sue him over such an alleged defamation. Gonçalo Amaral never had the same luck so did the Blarney have some protection for Mr Smith, him being a Dubliner and Gerry being from Co Donegal and all that?
All poor old Martin Smith did was to report a doubt to the police. How could have known that it would be splashed all over the Internet?
And he didn't claim that the person was "almost certainly" Gerry. Amaral did.
-
All poor old Martin Smith did was to report a doubt to the police. How could have known that it would be splashed all over the Internet?
And he didn't claim that the person was "almost certainly" Gerry. Amaral did.
He was 80% sure, that's 'almost certainly'.
-
He was 80% sure, that's 'almost certainly'.
What happened to the "60%"? Always conveniently overlooked by the "sceptics"!
-
The interesting question is why would you want to trash a sighting that SY think is of major importance ? Couple that with the (almost) disappearance of the efits from any McCann-sanctioned website and you could be forgiven for thinking that our esteemed couple and SY aren't exactly singing from the same hymn sheet.
On the one hand The Met and The Portuguese police have said "The McCanns are not suspects" so we should believe that cos they are the investigating authorities and know better than us ( I would not argue that point).
On the other hand The Portuguese police are as bent as a docker's hook and The Met are mistaken about Smithman (see threads on this very forum).
It reminds me of a joke told to me by a prof about a gnarled old Australian bushman who went in to Chambers in Sydney and said to the clerk " I wanna see a one armed barrister" I will leave you to work out the reasoning @)(++(*
-
What happened to the "60%"? Always conveniently overlooked by the "sceptics"!
Do you think that is why the Smith e-fit of a person resembling Gerry was conveniently tucked away and forgotten until nice Mr Redwood came along and found it?
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02702/efits2_2702171b.jpg)
-
Shall we start with this quote from Brietta ?
"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. "
You are dreaming...Brietta is questioning how accurate the the timing of the sighting...try reading the post again
-
Do you think that is why the Smith e-fit of a person resembling Gerry was conveniently tucked away and forgotten until nice Mr Redwood came along and found it?
It was handed to LP and the PJ years prior to it being publicised on Crimewatch. As there was another one that they could have used which looks nothing like Gerry (or Cristovão for that matter), my assumption is that there were legal reasons why they couldn't use either... ongoing litigation with Halligen sounds plausible to me.
-
He was 80% sure, that's 'almost certainly'.
no it isn't...99% is almost certainly
-
no it isn't...99% is almost certainly
8@??)( @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* if you say so Davy.
-
8@??)( @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* if you say so Davy.
as you can see....I do say so
-
8@??)( @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* if you say so Davy.
let me help you...
50% means it could or could not be.......it means you are not sure either way...100% is certain
so 80% is only just halfway between not sure either way and certain....so it cannot possibly mean almost certain...it's as simple as that
-
What happened to the "60%"? Always conveniently overlooked by the "sceptics"!
As is the fact that according to the Times article re the E-fits. Mr Smith has since changed his mind and no longer believes it was Gerry he saw.
Quote
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
Unquote
No retraction or apology was issued to Martin Smith - who as the following shows was quick to threaten legal action against newpapers who misrepresented him. It would seem that he had no objection to that statement.
QUOTE
Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough
Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.
He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor’s letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.
I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.
Forwarded please
Sergeant
UNQUOTE
-
Its hard to fathom where he really stands in all this, maybe his lawyer told him to keep stuch. He does like to take the dog for a walk though, a joy I myself partake in twice a day usually.
(http://i.imgur.com/XOmyGpB.jpg?1)
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2462431/Madeleine-McCann-Police-say-Irish-family-seen-Maddie-taken.html
-
let me help you...
50% means it could or could not be.......it means you are not sure either way...100% is certain
so 80% is only just halfway between not sure either way and certain....so it cannot possibly mean almost certain...it's as simple as that
He acted according to his conscience: quietly mentioning his sudden doubt to the police. I have no problem with that.
He was 60-80% sure based only on the way in which Gerry carried Sean down the plane steps - just after it had been announced that he'd been made arguido - and the similarity to his - by this time probably vague - recollection of how the person he saw carried a child down a sloping road.
Any investigation is likely to get hundreds of calls from people who wonder if they may have useful information. The police are supposed to sift through it all - not latch onto it in a desperate attempt to get a conviction and then exaggerate it in the media.
-
Do you think that is why the Smith e-fit of a person resembling Gerry was conveniently tucked away and forgotten until nice Mr Redwood came along and found it?
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02702/efits2_2702171b.jpg)
how do these e-fits fit in with your woke and wandered theory out of interest?
-
As is the fact that according to the Times article re the E-fits. Mr Smith has since changed his mind and no longer believes it was Gerry he saw.
Quote
There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.
Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.
Unquote
No retraction or apology was issued to Martin Smith - who as the following shows was quick to threaten legal action against newpapers who misrepresented him. It would seem that he had no objection to that statement.
QUOTE
Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough
Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.
He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor’s letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.
I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.
Forwarded please
Sergeant
UNQUOTE
I can't believe Martin Smith would say or do anything publicly until SY's investigation is over.
-
I can't believe Martin Smith would say or do anything publicly until SY's investigation is over.
Until SY got involved there was no chance the Smiths could be accused of perverting the course of justice.
-
Until SY got involved there was no chance the Smiths could be accused of perverting the course of justice.
Martin Smith has never spoken to a newspaper so who do you think he told that he had changed his mind ?
-
Martin Smith has never spoken to a newspaper so who do you think he told that he had changed his mind ?
He has spoken to newspapers via his solicitors apparently. In fact the record shows he does not appear to have allowed any misrepresention or misquotes by the press go unchallenged.
The Times reported what was a truly momentous turnaround of opinion by Martin Smith. I can't believe he would have let such a significant statement stand if it wasn't true.
-
He has spoken to newspapers via his solicitors apparently. In fact the record shows he does not appear to have allowed any misrepresention or misquotes by the press go unchallenged.
The Times reported what was a truly momentous turnaround of opinion by Martin Smith. I can't believe he would have let such a significant statement stand if it wasn't true.
As I have already said it would be understandable if he had been asked to say nothing publicly during the investigation by SY.
-
As I have already said it would be understandable if he had been asked to say nothing publicly during the investigation by SY.
you should look at your opening statement on this thread...you are wrong....no one here has claimed Smith did not see a man with a child
-
you should look at your opening statement on this thread...you are wrong....no one here has claimed Smith did not see a man with a child
I have made that claim, to be fair to Faith.
-
I have made that claim, to be fair to Faith.
so there's one
-
I have made that claim, to be fair to Faith.
Thank you for your honesty Misty.
-
so there's one
This is what you posted davel
'
you should look at your opening statement on this thread...you are wrong....no one here has claimed Smith did not see a man with a child'
I'm sure thanks to misty's welcome admission you will want to apologise.
-
This is what you posted davel
'
you should look at your opening statement on this thread...you are wrong....no one here has claimed Smith did not see a man with a child'
I'm sure thanks to misty's welcome admission you will want to apologise.
certainly not...look at your own statement...you talk of several posters....you are talking tosh as usual...perhaps you would like to apologise...could you post the post by misty to support your claim
-
For the record, and so no-one is embarrassed, I have claimed on several occasions that imo Smithman does not exist.
The CCTV camera at Estrela da Luz, under which Amaral was photographed expressing his dismay that the tape for 3/5 which would have undoubtedly shown Smithman passing, was wiped to eliminate evidence that said man did not actually exist. Furthermore, as Brietta posted, it would have also shown the time the Smiths returned to their apartment that night.
The Smith sighting was so important to the PJ that they took absolutely no further action whatsoever to immediately produce another Eggman sketch, complete with time & location, and ask for public assistance in identifying this man.
There are other reasons why I believe Smithman was invented, which I cannot go into on a public forum, but I think that despite the objective being achieved, one crucial mistake was made.
-
For the record, and so no-one is embarrassed, I have claimed on several occasions that imo Smithman does not exist.
The CCTV camera at Estrela da Luz, under which Amaral was photographed expressing his dismay that the tape for 3/5 which would have undoubtedly shown Smithman passing, was wiped to eliminate evidence that said man did not actually exist. Furthermore, as Brietta posted, it would have also shown the time the Smiths returned to their apartment that night.
The Smith sighting was so important to the PJ that they took absolutely no further action whatsoever to immediately produce another Eggman sketch, complete with time & location, and ask for public assistance in identifying this man.
There are other reasons why I believe Smithman was invented, which I cannot go into on a public forum, but I think that despite the objective being achieved, one crucial mistake was made.
TBH Misty..I think the only person who should be embarrassed is you...the evidence strongly supports that smithman is real
-
TBH Misty..I think the only person who should be embarrassed is you...the evidence strongly supports that smithman is real
What evidence is that?
-
What evidence is that?
witness testimony of the whole smilth family reporting that they saw a man carrying a child...are you suggesting they are all lying
-
witness testimony of the whole smilth family reporting that they saw a man carrying a child...are you suggesting they are all lying
My concern about that is that witness statements were not taken for at least a fortnight after Madeleine's disappearance.
-
My concern about that is that witness statements were not taken for at least a fortnight after Madeleine's disappearance.
Perhaps davel this should be the point where you asked Brietta whether she believes the Smiths actually saw Smithman as SY have claimed.
-
Perhaps davel this should be the point where you asked Brietta whether she believes the Smiths actually saw Smithman as SY have claimed.
I think Brietta's made a good point...perhaps she's right
-
I think Brietta's made a good point...perhaps she's right
So you think the Smiths colluded together to give false testimony because that's the only way they all could have got it wrong ?
-
So you think the Smiths colluded together to give false testimony because that's the only way they all could have got it wrong ?
Yes..I think they are call in on it..every one of them
-
I think Brietta's made a good point...perhaps she's right
I have my independent thoughts on the matter, just as you have yours.
But I think the point is that we are free thinkers not a homogeneous bunch reliant on central casting for a script.
I think the value the original investigation gave to the sighting, irrespective of what the 'book' may say, is signified by the total inertia concerning it until Mr Smith thought he saw Smithman descending aircraft steps.
-
Yes..I think they are call in on it..every one of them
Then by your post you have jettisoned any remaining credibility you retained.
-
It is looking more like someone shook the tree and a coconut fell ontop of Davel.. oh er changing your mind like that.
Supporters, do not like Smithman because :
1. He resembles Gerry
2. it is independant witness statements to throw off the 'time line' well , at least one of the three.
3.McCanns didn't use it for only reasons they hold onto.
4. it threw Tanneman out of the 'abductor' story.
Thing is 'Redwood the wonderful' thinks he did exist, and intimates he is important.Golly gosh what a travesty.
-
It is looking more like someone shook the tree and a coconut fell ontop of Davel.. oh er changing your mind like that.
Supporters, do not like Smithman because :
1. He resembles Gerry
2. it is independant witness statements to throw off the 'time line' well , at least one of the three.
3.McCanns didn't use it for only reasons they hold onto.
4. it threw Tanneman out of the 'abductor' story.
Thing is 'Redwood the wonderful' thinks he did exist, and intimates he is important.Golly gosh what a travesty.
I for one like Smithman, he is someone who I believe had Madeleine, and showed that she was abducted.
I don't think he resembles Gerry at all, the nose is too slim for a start.
It doesn't throw the timeline out, Gerry McCann could not have been Smithman as he was at the Tapas Bar when the Smiths saw their man.
The PJ didn't use it you mean. Kate McCann mentions Smithman in her book.
-
I for one like Smithman, he is someone who I believe had Madeleine, and showed that she was abducted.
I don't think he resembles Gerry at all, the nose is too slim for a start.
It doesn't throw the timeline out, Gerry McCann could not have been Smithman as he was at the Tapas Bar when the Smiths saw their man.
The PJ didn't use it you mean. Kate McCann mentions Smithman in her book.
It's an efit not a portrait. He wasn't at the tapas bar when Smithman was seen. The alarm was raised before the Smiths left Kelly's Bar. The fund Leaving No Stone Unturned withheld the efits from the public. The efits are not on their website but Tannerman and the donation button link is.
-
Personally, I don't see why either Jane or the Smiths would lie.
I find it quite feasible that neither of the sightings corresponded to whoever took her (just as one or the other or both may have done).
It is only just now that motorcycle-man in the Alps murder case has been identified. Apparently, it didn't register with him that he was the person being sought for questioning...
"His personal and professional profile exclude him 95 per cent from the list of suspects but further inquiries are still required," an investigator told France Info.
The motorcyclist said he did not "make the connection" between his presence near the scene of the killing and the identikit picture of him which was circulated. Police released the image in November 2013.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11453905/French-Alps-murder-hunt-Motorcyclist-ruled-out-over-al-Hilli-shootings.html
-
It is looking more like someone shook the tree and a coconut fell ontop of Davel.. oh er changing your mind like that.
Supporters, do not like Smithman because :
1. He resembles Gerry
2. it is independant witness statements to throw off the 'time line' well , at least one of the three.
3.McCanns didn't use it for only reasons they hold onto.
4. it threw Tanneman out of the 'abductor' story.
Thing is 'Redwood the wonderful' thinks he did exist, and intimates he is important.Golly gosh what a travesty.
What's not to like about Smithman?
1: To me he actually looks more like Cristovao than Cristovao does; but since that seems to be one of the few
things he is not facing charges for, it can hardly be him ... can it?
2: According to DCI Redwood the Smithman sighting fits in very well with the timeline and the statements given
by the material witnesses
3: I take it you missed the pages in MADELEINE and in the documentaries where Kate McCann spoke at length
about Smithman.
4: Jane Tanner's sighting has been corroborated ... you seem to have failed to notice that Crechman verifies what
she saw and in no way detracts from the fact that Madeleine was abducted ... 'Smithman' who Mr Smith has
affirmed is not Dr Gerald McCann replaces Tannerman as a possible abductor who fits the timescale well.
Thing is ... the one certainty we can have is that the PJ and SY are more up to speed on what and who may be possible than internet detectives are ... presently they have stated ...
(a) Madeleine was abducted which is why they are looking for an abductor
(b) they would like to speak to Smithman
Good enough for me, but I wonder if you might be among those who are of the opinion that if the police are not interested in charging your preferred perpetrator it is a travesty.
-
Well, here's the thing... I don't have a perpetrator. I have never claimed to know what happened to little Maddie. So keep your 'internet detective' jibe to yourself. Thank you.
SY and PJ are not saying Maddie was abducted by a stranger, and have not claimed if she was removed dead or alive from the apartment, unless I missed that bit. Please show a cite. thank you.
IMO that efit looks like Gerry. I am not claiming it is, I am saying LOOKS LIKE.
However, I find it interesting those supporters who believe the Smiths are claiming 'abduction' (since tannerman was rubbished), and denying it resembles Gerry lol
-
What's not to like about Smithman?
Mr Smith thought he saw Gerald McCann;
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
-
Well, here's the thing... I don't have a perpetrator. I have never claimed to know what happened to little Maddie. So keep your 'internet detective' jibe to yourself. Thank you.
SY and PJ are not saying Maddie was abducted by a stranger, and have not claimed if she was removed dead or alive from the apartment, unless I missed that bit. Please show a cite. thank you.
IMO that efit looks like Gerry. I am not claiming it is, I am saying LOOKS LIKE.
However, I find it interesting those supporters who believe the Smiths are claiming 'abduction' (since tannerman was rubbished), and denying it resembles Gerry lol
The man Jane Tanner saw carrying a child was verified ... not rubbished ... when he was identified as a parent carrying his child home from the night creche.
If the initial investation had been doing its job they would have discovered him in 2007 ... it was seven years later that SY comleted that diligence.
What is the importance of the Smith sighting if it is not suspected that the child being carried could be Madeleine McCann and the man coulf therefore be the abductor?
Why is the new investigation keen to speak to this man if not to rule him in or out of the investigation?
If the PJ and SY units specifically set up to investigate Madeleine McCann's disappearance are not looking into stranger abduction ... can you come up with a reason for them interviewing arguidos, witnesses and persons of interest in the case?
-
What's not to like about Smithman?
Mr Smith thought he saw Gerald McCann;
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Wonder if you would mind terribly making the effort to type your post outside the quotes ... makes more sense that way ... also if you do me the courtesy of not editing bits out of my posts, I'll do the same for you. thankyou
-
The man Jane Tanner saw carrying a child was verified ... not rubbished ... when he was identified as a parent carrying his child home from the night creche.
If the initial investation had been doing its job they would have discovered him in 2007 ... it was seven years later that SY comleted that diligence.
What is the importance of the Smith sighting if it is not suspected that the child being carried could be Madeleine McCann and the man coulf therefore be the abductor?
Why is the new investigation keen to speak to this man if not to rule him in or out of the investigation?
If the PJ and SY units specifically set up to investigate Madeleine McCann's disappearance are not looking into stranger abduction ...can you come up with a reason for them interviewing arguidos, witnesses and persons of interest in the case?
Rubbished as an 'abductor'.
The initial investigation did not believe the man identified by Tanner was an abductor- they were correct!
There can be many reasons: to establish who was where, who did they see, what were they doing. I have suggested that if there was a burglary, the burglars may have seen activity at or near the apartment and could have been witnesses to something, but were afraid to come forward due to their own criminal activity.
They may have seen the parents checking the children or people acting suspicous. or a child wandering?
Many reasons. I do not know the actual reasons and don't assume to know. I can just guess.
-
What's not to like about Smithman?
Mr Smith thought he saw Gerald McCann;
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Has any other Gerry McCann lookalikes come forward saying they were carrying his daughter lookalike and it's all an innocent explanation? No I don't think so either 8)--))
-
Rubbished as an 'abductor'.
The initial investigation did not believe the man identified by Tanner was an abductor- they were correct!
There can be many reasons: to establish who was where, who did they see, what were they doing. I have suggested that if there was a burglary, the burglars may have seen activity at or near the apartment and could have been witnesses to something, but were afraid to come forward due to their own criminal activity.
They may have seen the parents checking the children or people acting suspicous. or a child wandering?
Many reasons. I do not know the actual reasons and don't assume to know. I can just guess.
Some interesting points in there MTI 8(>((
"Tannerman The Abductor" :
Rubbished;fragged;greased; creamed; eliminated from enquiries.Whatever you want to call it the man Jane Tanner saw is a suspect no more but Smithman remains a person of interest to The Yard.
Ooops! oh dear! Say no more.
-
Some interesting points in there MTI 8(>((
"Tannerman The Abductor" :
Rubbished;fragged;greased; creamed; eliminated from enquiries.Whatever you want to call it the man Jane Tanner saw is a suspect no more but Smithman remains a person of interest to The Yard.
Ooops! oh dear! Say no more.
Tannerman has not been conclusively ruled out and smithman may be an innocent tourist
-
Tannerman has not been conclusively ruled out and smithman may be an innocent tourist
Have you changed your mind since yesterday that the Smiths were all lying and didn't see Smithman ?
-
Have you changed your mind since yesterday that the Smiths were all lying and didn't see Smithman ?
what does it matter...nothing on here is of any importance
-
Tannerman has not been conclusively ruled out and smithman may be an innocent tourist
I can't fathom why there are those who think they are entitled to know everything the police know in an active investigation; one thing I am sure of is that SY know a great deal more about Madeleine's case than has been released into the public domain.
-
Tannerman has not been conclusively ruled out and smithman may be an innocent tourist
An innocent tourist didn't hide efits. Time for the yard to investigate the samsung mobiles.
-
An innocent tourist didn't hide efits. Time for the yard to investigate the samsung mobiles.
why don't you drop them a line
-
why don't you drop them a line
They seem to be on the right track. When they go off it I may do that.
-
I can't fathom why there are those who think they are entitled to know everything the police know in an active investigation; one thing I am sure of is that SY know a great deal more about Madeleine's case than has been released into the public domain.
I don't profess to know much about what two groups of fuzz think; they sure as hell know a lot more than they tell the public and more than the two or three flavours of posters on here.
The Yard did however tell the public (refer to Crimewatch if you are in doubt) that the man Jane Tanner saw was not "the abductor" and that Smithman remains an unidentified person of interest. You just can't odds it no matter how many mirrors and how much smoke you try to use.
-
I don't profess to know much about what two groups of fuzz think; they sure as hell know a lot more than they tell the public and more than the two or three flavours of posters on here.
The Yard did however tell the public (refer to Crimewatch if you are in doubt) that the man Jane Tanner saw was not "the abductor" and that Smithman remains an unidentified person of interest. You just can't odds it no matter how many mirrors and how much smoke you try to use.
you will find that they have not ruled tannerman completely...
Police probe: DCI Andy Redwood last night reveals that he was 'almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine's abductor'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html#ixzz3ToCBgu9O
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
you will find that they have not ruled tannerman completely
You mean Andy Redwood's "almost certain we are positive we might have" routine.
The Yard don't seem to be asking for asking Tannerman II to be coming forward though do they?
-
You mean Andy Redwood's "almost certain we are positive we might have" routine.
The Yard don't seem to be asking for asking Tannerman II to be coming forward though do they?
I mean exactly what I said
-
Another man seen carrying a child near to the apartments where the family were staying - who was for years considered the chief suspect - has been excluded from the investigation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10402102/Madeleine-McCann-case-reopened-by-Portugal-police.html
-
what does it matter...nothing on here is of any importance
Care to answer the question asked ?
-
Another man seen carrying a child near to the apartments where the family were staying - who was for years considered the chief suspect - has been excluded from the investigation.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10402102/Madeleine-McCann-case-reopened-by-Portugal-police.html
And from Telegraph article in the link
"Detective chief inspector Andy Redwood, who is leading the British investigation, said witnesses had spotted a man carrying a young child fitting Madeleine's description towards the port area of Praia da Luz."
Wow. Not to the beach, to the beach. Not to the mound, to the mound. The Telegraph has now invented to the port, to the port. Thank goodness we don't have a port, or someone would suggest digging it up.
From the same article
"Correio da Manha, a Portuguese newspaper, has reported officers have been looking at the possibility that a foreign paedophile gang took Madeleine." (in a planned abduction.) I wonder if CdM is correct about this?
Presumably there is a planned abduction thread on here. I have been working on a planned abduction theory at ShiningInLuz and I was just about to start on the problems with that idea. I'd like to see what you lot have already said about a planned abduction.
Thanks!
-
Ha ha. Crecheman taking his child from the creche but heading towards it and Smithman heading towards a non existent port. Some people need to study Praia da Luz more closely I think.
-
https://www.facebook.com/diggingformadeleinmccann
https://www.facebook.com/ajax/sharer/?s=11&appid=2392950137&id=441764182653281&p%5B0%5D=441764182653281&sharer_type=all_modes
This is a 13 second video clip which provides a great perspective of the Smith's sighting. The pavements & road appear narrower than in the PJ photos in the files.
-
https://www.facebook.com/diggingformadeleinmccann
https://www.facebook.com/ajax/sharer/?s=11&appid=2392950137&id=441764182653281&p%5B0%5D=441764182653281&sharer_type=all_modes
This is a 13 second video clip which provides a great perspective of the Smith's sighting. The pavements & road appear narrower than in the PJ photos in the files.
I hadn't really noticed the bollard on the pavement at approximately the position Martin and Mary were when passing the individual.
-
I hadn't really noticed the bollard on the pavement at approximately the position Martin and Mary were when passing the individual.
Nor had I, but it was there in the 2007 photos. Having watched Birch walk down the road, it struck me how little passing space there would have been if the Smiths were walking 2 abreast. There appears to be barely enough room for a person to walk safely on the pavement (especially in the dark).
-
Nor had I, but it was there in the 2007 photos. Having watched Birch walk down the road, it struck me how little passing space there would have been if the Smiths were walking 2 abreast. There appears to be barely enough room for a person to walk safely on the pavement (especially in the dark).
Walkers on that pavement would have had two obstacles to avoid in 2007 there was a pole for the road sign right on the curve of the pavement.
I don't see it on the latest footage.
I think it possible that at that point on the pavement people would walk single file or walk on the road.
Watching Birch walking toward camera makes you realise how little room there is for passing.
-
Nor had I, but it was there in the 2007 photos. Having watched Birch walk down the road, it struck me how little passing space there would have been if the Smiths were walking 2 abreast. There appears to be barely enough room for a person to walk safely on the pavement (especially in the dark).
I was in PDL at the time they were making Amaral's documentary and caught them filming the Smith sighting as we walked home from a restaurant and I can tell you categorically that there is plenty of room for the family to have encountered Smithman as described.
-
I was in PDL at the time they were making Amaral's documentary and caught them filming the Smith sighting as we walked home from a restaurant and I can tell you categorically that there is plenty of room for the family to have encountered Smithman as described.
were you there in a professional capacity?
-
were you there in a professional capacity?
Not sure why that's relevant. Care to expand ?
-
Not sure why that's relevant. Care to expand ?
Care to expand on what? It was a simple question. OK, let's try it this way. Did you just happen to find yourself in PdL on holiday at the same time as the Amaral documentary shoot or were you somehow involved in its production? If the former was your holiday at that time by accident or design? Hope that's expanded fully enough for you.
-
Care to expand on what? It was a simple question. OK, let's try it this way. Did you just happen to find yourself in PdL on holiday at the same time as the Amaral documentary shoot or were you somehow involved in its production? If the former was your holiday at that time by accident or design? Hope that's expanded fully enough for you.
Would it change my recollection ?
-
Would it change my recollection ?
It might influence it. Anyway, I can see your reluctance to give a straight answer so shall press you no more and draw my own conclusions.
-
It might influence it. Anyway, I can see your reluctance to give a straight answer so shall press you no more and draw my own conclusions.
My goodness Alfie you are suspicious. Do you really think I was part of the production team ? @)(++(*
-
My goodness Alfie you are suspicious. Do you really think I was part of the production team ? @)(++(*
Tell me, did your interest in this case only arise after your holiday in PdL or was your holiday in PdL as a result of your "scepticism"?
-
Tell me, did your interest in this case only arise after your holiday in PdL or was your holiday in PdL as a result of your "scepticism"?
My goodness Alfie you do seem to think in stereotypes don't you ?
PDL and I go back long before it was tainted by the McCann's personal take on childcare.
-
My goodness Alfie you do seem to think in stereotypes don't you ?
PDL and I go back long before it was tainted by the McCann's personal take on childcare.
So it was sheer coincidence that your holiday in PdL coincided with Amaral's documentary shoot. I believe you, honest I do. 8)--))
-
Stranger things have happened. I believe that some people have even traveled to PDL for the specific purpose of photographing the area where the disappearance occurred.
-
My goodness Alfie you do seem to think in stereotypes don't you ?
PDL and I go back long before it was tainted by the McCann's personal take on childcare.
What has tainted Portugal for me is what we have learnt of it's police and justice systems
-
So it was sheer coincidence that your holiday in PdL coincided with Amaral's documentary shoot. I believe you, honest I do. 8)--))
It did indeed Alfie and possibly only the filming of the Smith sighting although there was GNR officers around for most of the week but I don't know whether the two things were connected.
-
Stranger things have happened. I believe that some people have even traveled to PDL for the specific purpose of photographing the area where the disappearance occurred.
Quel horreur. I do find it odd when people choose PdL as a holiday destination specifically because of the Madeleine connection. PdL would be my holiday destination of choice only after Chernobyl and Fukushima were both fully booked.
-
Quel horreur. I do find it odd when people choose PdL as a holiday destination specifically because of the Madeleine connection. PdL would be my holiday destination of choice only after Chernobyl and Fukushima were both fully booked.
And for that I'm sure the citizens of PDL are eternally grateful ! @)(++(*
-
And for that I'm sure the citizens of PDL are eternally grateful ! @)(++(*
I'm sure, I expect I am widely reviled in that town, in fact I hear there are posters of me in my stained cardi which have been defaced with "Alfred - you stink" graffiti. It's a well-known fact.
-
I'm sure, I expect I am widely reviled in that town, in fact I hear there are posters of me in my stained cardi which have been defaced with "Alfred - you stink" graffiti. It's a well-known fact.
Mocked rather than reviled Alfie. I believe your Scargill-combover is the cause of much hilarity in the more fashionable drinking establishments ! 8(0(*
-
Quel horreur. I do find it odd when people choose PdL as a holiday destination specifically because of the Madeleine connection. PdL would be my holiday destination of choice only after Chernobyl and Fukushima were both fully booked.
Oh My God. I can't possibly delete that. Besides, I'm laughing too much. Xcuse me. Must have a lie down.
-
Mocked rather than reviled Alfie. I believe your Scargill-combover is the cause of much hilarity in the more fashionable drinking establishments ! 8(0(*
Really??! I thought I was bang on trend... :-(
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_03/amaralDM1609_228x327.jpg)
-
Quel horreur. I do find it odd when people choose PdL as a holiday destination specifically because of the Madeleine connection. PdL would be my holiday destination of choice only after Chernobyl and Fukushima were both fully booked.
For once, I am in complete agreement with you @)(++(*
-
For once, I am in complete agreement with you @)(++(*
Post of the week, I think. Maybe even longer. And no one got insulted. Oh My. that's a record in itself.
-
Having just returned from a trip to Bhopal and booked my Jack the Ripper tour.......................
There is this pub you see which shall remain nameless. In said pub there is a plaque commemorating the murder of someone who did not exist. They come by the coach load to see it.......... so does anything surprise you as motivation to go places?
-
One thing is for sure I don't see any mention of the Smith's efits on any of the McCann's social media or website in recent times. There is a link for a downloadable video on the FindMadeleine.com website, which is hard to find, but no efit. Should we suspect SY have eliminated Smithman? What other explanation could there be other then the parents for whatever reason do not hold faith in this sighting?
-
One thing is for sure I don't see any mention of the Smith's efits on any of the McCann's social media or website in recent times. There is a link for a downloadable video on the FindMadeleine.com website, which is hard to find, but no efit. Should we suspect SY have eliminated Smithman? What other explanation could there be other then the parents for whatever reason do not hold faith in this sighting?
They never mentioned that on Crimewatch..
'Probably our best chance of finding her'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y&t=2031
The E-Fits are so important to them.
-
One thing is for sure I don't see any mention of the Smith's efits on any of the McCann's social media or website in recent times. There is a link for a downloadable video on the FindMadeleine.com website, which is hard to find, but no efit. Should we suspect SY have eliminated Smithman? What other explanation could there be other then the parents for whatever reason do not hold faith in this sighting?
They have never displayed those efits as far as I know. They still have 'Tannerman' there, even though DCI Redwood suggested SY had eliminated him.
-
They have never displayed those efits as far as I know. They still have 'Tannerman' there, even though DCI Redwood suggested SY had eliminated him.
They have displayed them sporadically during 2014 on Twitter, Facebook and even on the findmadeleine website. On the findmadeliene website they were on the root index page which seemed hard to find it must be said. Still I wonder why they are not continuing to do so?
-
They have displayed them sporadically during 2014 on Twitter, Facebook and even on the findmadeleine website. On the findmadeliene website they were on the root index page which seemed hard to find it must be said. Still I wonder why they are not continuing to do so?
I know I'll get in trouble for this, but I can't help myself. The efits did remind me of someone who is 'not a suspect or a person of interest'. However, I can't find anything which says unequivocably that the Smith family were involved in their creation.
-
I know I'll get in trouble for this, but I can't help myself. The efits did remind me of someone who is 'not a suspect or a person of interest'. However, I can't find anything which says unequivocably that the Smith family were involved in their creation.
Neither can I ... which leading on from the statements available to us in the files is why I doubt the Smith family had any input to them at all.
-
Neither can I ... which leading on from the statements available to us in the files is why I doubt the Smith family had any input to them at all.
I wonder who made them up then?
I wonder why The Met seem to remain of the opinion that whoever "Mr Made up Person" is, he is a person of interest?
-
I wonder who made them up then?
I wonder why The Met seem to remain of the opinion that whoever "Mr Made up Person" is, he is a person of interest?
Me too ... but I have no idea.
I do not think the Met publicised them without there being good reason, and would they necessarily tell us if they have found him and he remains a person of interest given the sensitivity of Portuguese secrecy law?
-
Really? Why do you guys think that the Smiths were not responsible for the efits? I thought private investigators for the McCanns first approached the Smiths and constructed the efits. Will all become clear if I read the thread from the beginning?
-
Me too ... but I have no idea.
I do not think the Met publicised them without there being good reason, and would they necessarily tell us if they have found him and he remains a person of interest given the sensitivity of Portuguese secrecy law?
Of course we were told about Tannerman when he was eliminated so there is no reason to think that that wouldn't happen with Smithman.
-
Really? Why do you guys think that the Smiths were not responsible for the efits? I thought private investigators for the McCanns first approached the Smiths and constructed the efits. Will all become clear if I read the thread from the beginning?
It's not discussed on this thread, but I have never been sure where they came from. 8(0(*
-
Really? Why do you guys think that the Smiths were not responsible for the efits? I thought private investigators for the McCanns first approached the Smiths and constructed the efits. Will all become clear if I read the thread from the beginning?
Martin — He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good.
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
Aoife — Questioned, states that probably she would not be able to recognise either the individual or the child.
Peter — States that it would not be possible to recognize the individual in person or via photograph.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
If unable to describe the man's features a fortnight after seeing him, why would any of these three family members be able to give a description years later.
We haven't seen Mary Smith's statement although the presumption can be made that she made one as it is recorded she refused to change it to match her husband's when he thought the man resembled Dr Gerry McCann.
So if any member of the Smith family was able to give sufficient information to enable an efit to be made, it would be Mary ... and from that we would have to ask the question why her information was not used to do that by the investigators when she made her initial statement whenever that may have been.
Surely worth returning to Portugal for ... or for an artist to be sent to Eire.
-
Thanks, Brietta, very clear statement of the problem. do you have any guess as to where they may have come from?
-
Thanks, Brietta, very clear statement of the problem. do you have any guess as to where they may have come from?
Any Help, G?
Efits -smiths refused
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P16/16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4135.jpg
Smiths Efits compiled by private detectives (Oakley) dossier was handed to Mccanns in ?Nov 2008
They were then circulated to PJ and UK police. Oct 2009
………………………….
News item re- efits
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/drogheda-family-s-evidence-key-to-madeleine-appeal-1.1560826
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sunday-times-sued-mccanns-over-story-which-wrongly-claimed-evidence-was-withheld-police
-
Yes thanks for that Brietta. One or 2 things I'd like to discuss but am in work and unfortunately can't chat about McCanns all day, but info much appreciated. Will post later. The edits do indeed bear a resemblance to Mr McCann imo. Even the one with the lighter hair if you compare it to a pic of Gerry at night. Suffice to say, the efits also look like several other people persons around the case like Mathew Oldfield for instance imo. This highlights I believe the fact that the efits are very ambiguous in their nature.
-
Me too ... but I have no idea.
I do not think the Met publicised them without there being good reason, and would they necessarily tell us if they have found him and he remains a person of interest given the sensitivity of Portuguese secrecy law?
A moot point I guess, which will fail to mute the punters.
-
Do you think that is why the Smith e-fit of a person resembling Gerry was conveniently tucked away and forgotten until nice Mr Redwood came along and found it?
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02702/efits2_2702171b.jpg)
No
I think the context of a live and on-going police enquiry was needed to release it.
Also, the Portuguese and British police both had the efit for years before it was released.
Andy Redwood was very specific that the efits are two produced by two (diiferent!) witnesses
-
So, to recap. The Smiths saw a man carrying a child at around 10pm on 3rd May 2007. They gave a vague description of the man, but didn't think they would know him again, although one of them later seemed sure the man wasn't Robert Murat. He also suggested at some point the man could have been Gerald McCann. Quite a few changes, so OK to have doubts, I think.
The two efits shown on Crimewatch may or may not have anything to do with the Smiths.