That phone call probably can't be confirmed either.... (snip) ...The more I look into this case Goncalo seems to have been at fault.Mr Amaral is correct. The phonecall at 10:55am on 20 Sept 2007 was documented by the british police Robbity.
Mr Amaral is correct. The phonecall at 10:55am on 20 Sept 2007 was documented by the british police Robbity.I don't question that one.
(snip) ... Portuguese libel-law (probably) allows Amaral to get away with such (libellous) guff.This phonecall Mr Amaral refers to was received and documented by British police
Gonçalo Amaral claimed that the e-fits were effectively a ruse created in order
to discredit the Smith sighting and were not based on the Smith recollections.
Key witness identified the father of Maddie
(http://i.imgur.com/zjaxBkw.jpg?1)
21 October 2013
Gonçalo Amaral reveals that key testimony was undervalued at the time of disappearance
Key witness identified the father of Maddie Gonçalo Amaral reveals that key testimony was undervalued at the time of disappearance. The testimony of one of the Smith family members who identified Gerry McCann as the man who saw the night of the disappearance of Maddie carrying a child in her arms the way to the beach [Light] was devalued after I leave the case. "It's a lie that the portrait e-fit that the British police released is now based on the testimony of the Smith family."
"The statements are Gonçalo Amaral, former coordinator of the PJ who investigated the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the Correio da Manha. And come in following the pictures robot disclosure by the Scotland Yard pointing one of the drawings as the main suspect in the alleged abduction of the English child, the May 3, 2007 - who claim to have been made based on the testimony of an Irish family vacationed in Praia da Luz when Maddie disappeared.
"The Smith family told us what they saw that night. A man, alien, athletic, burned face from the sun, like the tourists, and hid his face not to be seen with a blonde child in her arms,"said Goncalo Amaral. "Shortly thereafter, when the McCann family ' fled 'to the UK, and were greeted at the airport by TV, a Smith family member called us, very distressed. Gerry [father of Maddie], which was off the plane, was the man that Mr. Smith had seen carrying a child that night," explained the former coordinator. For Gonçalo Amaral, "there was a positive identification, which was set aside." "The McCanns hired detectives who made a picture, a man like Gerry, to devalue the testimony," he said.
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/testemunha-chave-identificou-pai-de-maddie.html
I agree with Mr Amaral, the two Crimewatch efits were not made not by members of the Smith group IMO.
DCI Redwood said they were. Henry Exton said they were. Amaral wasn't in the loop by then.Do we have a direct quote from Mr R himself (not quotes from a from a crimewatch narrator please) stating that the efits were done by members of the Smith group?
Do you believe Redwood deliberately lied or failed to check with the Smiths before going on camera?
Do we have a direct quote from Mr R himself (not quotes from a from a crimewatch narrator please) stating that the efits were done by members of the Smith group?
@Misty this contains a lot of guesswork but IMO one of the efits may be by a different witness who according to a CdM press report saw a walking man talking on a mobile phone carrying a child, probably west or southwest of the smith sighting. Of course the press report may be incorrect.
Translated "The woman saw him speaking in English on the phone, as he passed, carrying the child"
http://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/phone-calls-frame-maddie-kidnappers.html
Wasn't there an answer in one of the two houses of Parliament that the e-fits had been drawn up by two members of an Irish family?Up until Crimewatch 2013, the British public had been told that the main suspect was a man walking east from 5A. Therefore this witness who reportedly saw a man carrying a child while talking on mobile in the southwest corner of town completely irrelevant and not of interest because it was in the opposite direction.
And hasn't the debate focussed on which two members of said Irish family?
This doesn't invalidate that a woman claimed she saw a man on phone conversing whilst carrying a child. It does seem to imply this info surfaced post-CrimeWatch 2013, but why would an innocent witness wait until then to help the police with their enquiries?
Up until Crimewatch 2013, the British public had been told that the main suspect was a man walking east from 5A. Therefore this witness who reportedly saw a man carrying a child while talking on mobile in the southwest corner of town completely irrelevant and not of interest because it was in the opposite direction.Was the GB public ignorant of Smithman until CW 2013? Surely that is the connection? Smithman on 25 de Abril around 10pm. And that came out years earlier, AFAIK.
Was the GB public ignorant of Smithman until CW 2013? Surely that is the connection? Smithman on 25 de Abril around 10pm. And that came out years earlier, AFAIK.Yes before Crimewatch 2013 the vast majority of the information seen by the Brit public on TV and in newspapers concentrated on the JT sighting. Did the official search website make any mention at all of the Smith sighting prior to Crimewatch? Did any of the numerous press offerings by Mr Mitchell ever mention the Smith sighting before Crimewatch? Not to my recollection.
Yes before Crimewatch 2013 the vast majority of the information seen by the Brit public on TV and in newspapers concentrated on the JT sighting. Did the official search website make any mention at all of the Smith sighting prior to Crimewatch? Did any of the numerous press offerings by Mr Mitchell ever mention the Smith sighting before Crimewatch? Not to my recollection.Wouldn't that be a fault of Goncalo's. He had the sightings but just because of a phone call (supposedly) he identifies Gerry, when in fact Gerry had a watertight alibi (organising the search for Madeleine, but it was nothing for him just to declare all the McCann's friends were lying.
Wouldn't that be a fault of Goncalo's. He had the sightings but just because of a phone call (supposedly) he identifies Gerry, when in fact Gerry had a watertight alibi (organising the search for Madeleine, but it was nothing for him just to declare all the McCann's friends were lying.
Yes before Crimewatch 2013 the vast majority of the information seen by the Brit public on TV and in newspapers concentrated on the JT sighting. Did the official search website make any mention at all of the Smith sighting prior to Crimewatch? Did any of the numerous press offerings by Mr Mitchell ever mention the Smith sighting before Crimewatch? Not to my recollection.
Kate McCann believes the Smith sighting is highly significanthttp://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41902208/Kate%20McCann%20and%20the%20Smith%20Sighting
The McCanns have never dismissed the Smith sighting as an irrelevance.
However, when does the opinion of the parents of a missing child override that of the investigating authorities who paid scant attention in the period between the first report and the BBC Crimewatch programme?
There must have been a reason for that.
Wonder what it was?
Focusing opprobrium on the McCanns for any perceived omission in the investigation is, in my opinion, misplaced.
It is a police job to investigate and if necessary publicise information ... not the victim's or the victim's family.
It is interesting what Kate is quoted to say.Kate McCann believes the Smith sighting is highly significanthttp://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/41902208/Kate%20McCann%20and%20the%20Smith%20Sighting
The McCanns have never dismissed the Smith sighting as an irrelevance.
However, when does the opinion of the parents of a missing child override that of the investigating authorities who paid scant attention in the period between the first report and the BBC Crimewatch programme?
There must have been a reason for that.
Wonder what it was?
Focusing opprobrium on the McCanns for any perceived omission in the investigation is, in my opinion, misplaced.
It is a police job to investigate and if necessary publicise information ... not the victim's or the victim's family.
Kate McCann's book "Madeleine" (hardback):-
Kate McCann devotes no fewer than 4 pages in her book to the significance of the Smith sighting – pp 98, 328-329 & 365
She says:-
Quote:
“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 Primaria 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 skepticism 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”.
Gerry McCann had no watertight alibi. According to his friends he left the Tapas with them just after 10pm. He himself put the time at 10.13pm. The problem is that the nine statements only count as one statement because the group agreed the timeline together. On another thread there are five statements which cast doubt on the time of the alarm by Kate McCann.Your post above completely contradicts itself in 4 short sentences.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7137.0
Wasn't there an answer in one of the two houses of Parliament that the e-fits had been drawn up by two members of an Irish family?
And hasn't the debate focussed on which two members of said Irish family?
This doesn't invalidate that a woman claimed she saw a man on phone conversing whilst carrying a child. It does seem to imply this info surfaced post-CrimeWatch 2013, but why would an innocent witness wait until then to help the police with their enquiries?
Gerry McCann had no watertight alibi. According to his friends he left the Tapas with them just after 10pm. He himself put the time at 10.13pm. The problem is that the nine statements only count as one statement because the group agreed the timeline together. On another thread there are five statements which cast doubt on the time of the alarm by Kate McCann.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7137.0
Your post above completely contradicts itself in 4 short sentences.
It wasn't the victims family's job to obtain and publicise efits of the 'Beckham' sighting, but they did it. If they had behaved logically they should also have publicised the 'Smithman efits in October 2008, but, illogically, they didn't. That stone was left unturned until SY did it.
Could you elucidate please?I'm sure you're intelligent enough to work it out yourself.
Sigh!
How many more times?
Spain is another country from Portugal.
And no where near PdL.
Where Madeleine was abducted from.
Different timing (the Spanish) sighting also (from the time Madeleine was abducted).
Absolutely no comparison (between the Victoria Beckham look-alike sighting) and the Smith sighting.
The Smith sighting (might have been) of Madeleine being abducted.
That's why it could only ever be released publicly in the context of a live and on-going police enquiry.
I have (genuine) sympathy with our Portuguese friends on this board, themselves not used to the concept of efits and their proper use (because the Portuguese national police don't use them) who don't quite see the concept.
But English posters (who don't see it) bloody well should know better. English police have been using efits long enough.
And The Times 'insight' team was a bloody disgrace ....
I'm sure you're intelligent enough to work it out yourself.
Wouldn't that be a fault of Goncalo's. He had the sightings but just because of a phone call (supposedly) he identifies Gerry, when in fact Gerry had a watertight alibi (organising the search for Madeleine, but it was nothing for him just to declare all the McCann's friends were lying.
Well in some respect I agree that Tanner sighting and Smith sighting are of different people and carrying two different children. The sightings don't dovetail. Age of person doing the carrying, age and sex of child, colour of pyjamas are similar purely coincidental. But the Smith sighting is the significant one.
Sigh!
How many more times?
Spain is another country from Portugal.
And no where near PdL.
Where Madeleine was abducted from.
Different timing (the Spanish) sighting also (from the time Madeleine was abducted).
Absolutely no comparison (between the Victoria Beckham look-alike sighting) and the Smith sighting.
The Smith sighting (might have been) of Madeleine being abducted.
That's why it could only ever be released publicly in the context of a live and on-going police enquiry.
I have (genuine) sympathy with our Portuguese friends on this board, themselves not used to the concept of efits and their proper use (because the Portuguese national police don't use them) who don't quite see the concept.
But English posters (who don't see it) bloody well should know better. English police have been using efits long enough.
And The Times 'insight' team was a bloody disgrace ....
You have most of that right except for the abduction claim. Still unsupported by actual evidence.
As for the release of the e-fits it is fact that they were withheld and not released to the public. A strange thing to do imo when the claim was no stone unturned?
You have most of that right except for the abduction claim. Still unsupported by actual evidence.
As for the release of the e-fits it is fact that they were withheld and not released to the public. A strange thing to do imo when the claim was no stone unturned?
What are the odds of this happening a few hundred metres and 45 minutes apart in a quiet rural village?True it is rare, but it is still one of the options that can't be ruled out unfortunately.
I suggest extremely small.
there is evidence to support abductionDefine abduction as you use the term please?
An interesting side-line is that Gail Coooper's sighting classically illustrates the difference between intelligence and evidence.@Ferryman
Gail Cooper's sighting came before Madeleine's abduction, so we can state, certainly, that she did not witness Madeleine's abduction.
But (conceivably, not necessarily) she might have witnessed Madeleine's abductor.
So, in the light of Madeleine's abduction (and very properly!) she offered the efit.
That is intelligence, which subsequent information and developments may (or may not!) make, also, evidence.
(Incidentally, full justification in the efit being published when it was).
The Smith sighting (by contrast) is actual evidence, potentially, Madeleine's abduction.
Hence the reason the two sightings were treated very differently.
Was it tested in the courts, or was it another of those things that didn't get that far? I genuinely can't remember.
@Ferryman
The intelligence about Cooperman is:
He did a charity collection.
He was seen walking while it was raining.
That's it.
Clearly you can't back up what you said. OK 8((()*/
An interesting side-line is that Gail Coooper's sighting classically illustrates the difference between intelligence and evidence.
Gail Cooper's sighting came before Madeleine's abduction, so we can state, certainly, that she did not witness Madeleine's abduction.
But (conceivably, not necessarily) she might have witnessed Madeleine's abductor.
So, in the light of Madeleine's abduction (and very properly!) she offered the efit.
That is intelligence, which subsequent information and developments may (or may not!) make, also, evidence.
(Incidentally, full justification in the efit being published when it was).
The Smith sighting (by contrast) is actual evidence, potentially, Madeleine's abduction.
Hence the reason the two sightings were treated very differently.
You claimed that we have to treat the 9 Tapas diners' statements as one because they all agreed the timeline, then in the very next sentence you tell us that Gerry gives a time at odds with the rest of the group for the alarm being raised. If you can't see how this contradicts your contention that they were all working off a pre-agreed timeline then I can draw you a picture if necessary.... @)(++(*
Yes - it was.
quote:
5. The McCanns were forced to make a legal claim in the High Court because of the Sunday Times' refusal to accept responsibility.
6. Only after the newspaper was sued did the it accept liability and offer to settle the case.
end quote.
Date 3 October 2014
Sunday Times apologises and agrees to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages
Carter-Ruc k Solicitor s
6 St Andre w Stree t
Londo n EC4 A 3 A E
The Sunday Times has agreed to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel damages (all of which they will donate to two charities - Missing People and the Joe Humphries Memorial Trust).
Mr and Mrs McCann's complaint related to an article by the Sunday Times' "Insight" team published on the front page of the newspaper in October 2013.
The article alleged that Mr and Mrs McCann and Madeleine's Fund had kept secret from the investigating authorities crucial evidence (primarily consisting of "e-fits" obtained by private investigators) relating to their daughter's abduction.
The Sunday Times' allegations were completely false.
As the newspaper now accepts, there is no question of the McCanns having sought to suppress any evidence; indeed all of the material collated by the private investigators had been provided to the relevant Portuguese and Leicestershire police four years earlier. The private investigators' report (including the e-fits) was also provided to the Metropolitan Police in 2011 shortly after the Met commenced its review into Madeleine's disappearance.
The Sunday Times has also agreed to pay the McCanns' legal costs of bringing the complaint.
The McCanns have today issued a statement commenting on this case, a copy of which is attached.
http://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
The T9 went to the trouble of agreeing the timeline and then all strayed from it in their individual statements. Obviously it wasn't completely correct.So their statements can all be taken as individual statements, not as one homogenous mutually agreed statement as you claimed. Whether you choose to believe only one, two or none of them, is your prerogative but don't claim that their statements amount to one statement, it's not true as you yourself pointed out with Gerry's claim of a later time for the alarm.
The report quoted sounds more like an out of court settlement.
It wouldn't be a question of Sunday Times agreeing to pay a certain amount if a court had ordered it
I'm not referring to what the police did, but to what the McCanns did. They publicised Cooper's efit and had no objection to the NotW naming him as the 'abductor'.
When they got a much more significant lead; Smithman, they ignored it, although there was no-one stopping them from publicising it.
Wriggle away though if you wish, I expect nothing less.
Uh Huh ... now why do you suppose that would be?
The forum has already had a full discussion of why Times newspapers had to recompense the McCanns: quite simply they libelled or in other words printed lies about them. If you cannot accept the recorded and glaringly obvious truth of the matter nothing I can say will lift the blinkers.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5267.msg187263#msg187263
So their statements can all be taken as individual statements, not as one homogenous mutually agreed statement as you claimed. Whether you choose to believe only one, two or none of them, is your prerogative but don't claim that their statements amount to one statement, it's not true as you yourself pointed out with Gerry's claim of a later time for the alarm.
I "wriggle" from nothing.
You just don't understand the principle.
If you are Portuguese, I forgive you.
But I don't think I can (explain the principle in a way you would understand).
UK investigative journalists located a man in Altura resembling GC's photofit and when they showed photographs of him to GC, she reportedly confirmed it was the man she had seen:
Were the police able to trace him for elimination purposes?
It has nothing to do with principles, it's very simple. The McCanns publicised one lead and didn't publicise another nine months later. They made that choice, no-one else. Had they wanted to publicise it they would have sent Clarence off to do another press conference. They didn't want to publicise it apparently.They would your own feelings on the matter. In the New theory I can see good reasons for this, for too much pressure on Smithman is not a good thing. Somehow Smithman has to come clean through his own conscience and get the McCann's forgiveness, for they will be hoping Smithman knows where MM is.
Well, you can take your pick. The collective timelines, given to the PJ to 'help' them are clearly useless.your. conclusion is of nil importance to anyone. What matters is the conclusion of the authorities who, having examined all the witness testimony, decided that the alarm was raised at around 10pm, not as early as 9.45 and not as late as 10.13. Around 10pm suggests a plus or minus of 5 minutes, though I don't suppose for one moment that you would agree with that!
Taking individual statements the alarm was raised between 9.45 and 10.13pm.
Independent witnesses suggest an even earlier time.
My conclusion; the timeline can't be relied on, because there is no definitive timeline.
your. conclusion is of nil importance to anyone. What matters is the conclusion of the authorities who, having examined all the witness testimony, decided that the alarm was raised at around 10pm, not as early as 9.45 and not as late as 10.13. Around 10pm suggests a plus or minus of 5 minutes, though I don't suppose for one moment that you would agree with that!
your. conclusion is of nil importance to anyone. What matters is the conclusion of the authorities who, having examined all the witness testimony, decided that the alarm was raised at around 10pm, not as early as 9.45 and not as late as 10.13. Around 10pm suggests a plus or minus of 5 minutes, though I don't suppose for one moment that you would agree with that!
I think it is also significant that Mrs Smith added in her statement (well after release of the files, where she made plain the Smiths had (both) long since forsaken any view that the man might be Gerry) that the man, nevertheless, had a similar build to Gerry.But didn't Goncalo Amaral really cling onto the false identification. He appears real keen to take up bits that suited his theory. We are all a bit like this.
That might well be (almost certainly was!) what led them both to the (initial, mistaken) impression that the man might have been Gerry.
But didn't Goncalo Amaral really cling onto the false identification. He appears real kean to take up bits that suited his theory. We are all a bit like this.Almost 3 months after Mr Amaral was taken off the case, the Irish police, on behalf the PJ Rebelo (not Amaral) investigation, took this statement from the witness on 23 Jan 2008.
I think it is also significant that Mrs Smith added in her statement (well after release of the files, where she made plain the Smiths had (both) long since forsaken any view that the man might be Gerry) that the man, nevertheless, had a similar build to Gerry.
That might well be (almost certainly was!) what led them both to the (initial, mistaken) impression that the man might have been Gerry.
But didn't Goncalo Amaral really cling onto the false identification. He appears real keen to take up bits that suited his theory. We are all a bit like this.
Have any of the Smiths ever given an interview about the events they witnessed that night or are they being prevented from doing so?
Have any of the Smiths ever given an interview about the events they witnessed that night or are they being prevented from doing so?
The Smiths have been very discrete about the events of May 3 2007. They have sought no publicity and have actively discouraged it by complaining vociferously about press intrusion into their privacy.
In my opinion there is nothing to prevent them from discussing the event in which they were involved except the intrusive scrutiny of what they have to say, to which they have already objected.
Should smithman ever be discovered and found to be worthy of prosecution, their self imposed silence could be valuable as their evidence would not be compromised or tainted by remarks made by them for public consumption.
Perhaps that personal constraint acts as a preventative measure of which they have become aware by their ability to recall features to enable efits which they were unable to divulge to the PJ at the time. Who knows what else they were able to recall to the McCann private investigators which may also be of value to the investigation?
Mrs Pamela Fenn (date of interview):
20 August 2007
Getting on for 4 months after Madeleine's abduction.
And she lived on the doorstep of where it all it happened (almost literally).
In my opinion Mrs Fenn's statement lent nothing substantive to the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. Apart from showing the missed opportunity and disregard of taking statements from close neighbours who might have been able to add to the narrative.
Careful questioning of Mr and Mrs Moyes who were in the apartment immediately above Mrs Fenn and who were out and about in the street just before Madeleine was missed, might have relayed detail which although insignificant to them might have added intelligence to the police investigation.
Whereas, if the Smith family did indeed encounter an individual carrying a child described as resembling the missing child
I wonder what direction the investigation might have taken had the Smith sighting been reported to the police on the 4th when the news broke of the disappearance of a little girl.
One outcome would have been the immediate availability of the CCTV images which would have confirmed the time of their return and thus given a good approximation of exactly when they had passed the stranger; might even have captured an image of him and his direction of travel prior to encountering the Smiths.
Another outcome might have been that the heat did not settle on Robert Murat in quite the way it did and the focus of the investigation might have taken an entirely different path.
My point was, more, that I think the Smiths are being unfairly slated (in certain quarters) for 'not coming forward' before.
Judgement about the value or worth of statements (necessarily and by definition) must, always, be retrospective.
Beforehand, you just can't know.
Given the uncertainty shown by the Smith family individually and collectively the delay between reporting their version of events of the 3rd May and the penny dropping with Peter contacting his family to enquire was he dreaming or not allowed pressing events to move along a route they may not have otherwise taken.
Hindsight is an exact science. Nor can one see through the Smith eyes as to why they made no connection with their observation as it related to the furore taking place in Luz and with which they were familiar from both near and afar.
Prior to 2013 and before going into the case in any greater detail than the tabloid stories of the time, I had been under the impression that the Tanner sighting and the Smith sighting had been reported to the investigating authority contemporaneously.
I found comprehending that was not what had happened very difficult to take on board. Given the in-depth analysis which is usually derisory that other witness statements have been subject to, for example, Jane Tanner's sighting of a man outside the apartment block ... the Smith statements have met with extraordinary univeral credibility and acceptance.
Just a reminder, from the Sept 2007 statement of an English tourist (Apensos V, volume 1, p131).No I think Smithman is pivotal to the case.
"Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal. Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child's weight"
In fact the man seen by this english witness saw was not GM, was not english, was not an abductor, was not a body hider, and had absolutely nothing to do with the case.
Am I the only poster who can see that the similar Smith sighting also has absolutely nothing to do with the case?
No I think Smithman is pivotal to the case.It appears that (apart from me), almost all posters - posters on the abduction side, and posters on the opposite "non-abduction" side - and Mr Amaral, and SY too (judging by their press releases) all think that the Smith sighting is pivotal to the case.
It appears that (apart from me), almost all posters - posters on the abduction side, and posters on the opposite "non-abduction" side - and Mr Amaral, and SY too (judging by their press releases) all think that the Smith sighting is pivotal to the case.Remember I was a bit different I didn't put all my eggs in the one basket. I thought the Egg and the Smithman were connected.
It's risky enough when one investigator puts all their eggs in one basket in an unsolved case. It is very strange when (almost) all investigators, real, and armchair of both opposite sides, put all their eggs in the same basket, and an absurdly unlikely one at that, just IMO.
Yes.
Mrs Smith gave an interview recently in which she said they (the Smiths) stand ready to support the McCanns in whatever way they can to find Madeleine.
And I really don't understand why some people question the Smiths' probity based on the time that elapsed before they gave their interviews.
How long did it take to interview Mrs Fenn?
She was the person in closest to proximity to the apartment when Madeleine was abducted and a resident of PdL.
Yet it was weeks after the event that she was (finally) interviewed.
The Smiths had to travel (especially) from another country to be interviewed. alot more organising involved.
Remember I was a bit different I didn't put all my eggs in the one basket. I thought the Egg and the Smithman were connected.
On 5th May 6 teams made up of PJ officers and members of the Ocean Club maintenance staff visited 443 residences in the Ocean Club. People were asked if they had any information and if they did they were taken for formal questioning.
Mrs Fenn and the Moyes must either have been out or said they had no information. If they were missed there was an apartment given over to the police [606] where they could have gone and reported anything of interest to the investigation. Derek Flack, who was staying in the Mirage apartments, went there to report what he saw.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EXTERNAL.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DEREK_FLACK.htm
It still never ceases to amaze me that with all these people milling around, wandering up and down between the tapas and block 5, staff members, locals visiting, smokers puffing in the shadows, tourists watching from balconies etc etc etc that only one person saw what appeared to be this elusive abductor but even her testimony has now been questioned by SY.
How does one abduct a kid in such circumstances and disappear into the ether?
It still never ceases to amaze me that with all these people milling around, wandering up and down between the tapas and block 5, staff members, locals visiting, smokers puffing in the shadows, tourists watching from balconies etc etc etc that only one person saw what appeared to be this elusive abductor but even her testimony has now been questioned by SY.
How does one abduct a kid in such circumstances and disappear into the ether?
A logistical nightmare.
From 8.30pm to 9pm Gerry, Kate, Jane, Matthew and Rachael, Russell, the Paynes and Jeremy Wikins passed by.
From 9pm to 9.30pm Matthew, Gerry, Jez, Jane and the Moyes passed by. The chef drove by on his way from the central kitchen to the Tapas, as did a maintenance worker and his girlfriend. The Carpenters were around by the Tapas entrance. We also have [allegedly] crecheman around.
From 9.30pm to 10pm Matthew, Russell [twice] and Jane passed by.
Overlooking the car park are two blocks where people could be seated on balconies like Balu and Naylor were. A couple left Block 6 at 10pm and did a drive-past.
The other Tapas diners must have been around and there could have been people coming from the Millenium restaurant.
Amazingly the only people who saw each other were Matthew and the Paynes [after being reminded], Jane saw Gerry, Jez and crecheman but no-one seems to have seen her.
A logistical nightmare.We have not seen Crecheman's statement.
From 8.30pm to 9pm Gerry, Kate, Jane, Matthew and Rachael, Russell, the Paynes and Jeremy Wikins passed by.
From 9pm to 9.30pm Matthew, Gerry, Jez, Jane and the Moyes passed by. The chef drove by on his way from the central kitchen to the Tapas, as did a maintenance worker and his girlfriend. The Carpenters were around by the Tapas entrance. We also have [allegedly] crecheman around.
From 9.30pm to 10pm Matthew, Russell [twice] and Jane passed by.
Overlooking the car park are two blocks where people could be seated on balconies like Balu and Naylor were. A couple left Block 6 at 10pm and did a drive-past.
The other Tapas diners must have been around and there could have been people coming from the Millenium restaurant.
Amazingly the only people who saw each other were Matthew and the Paynes [after being reminded], Jane saw Gerry, Jez and crecheman but no-one seems to have seen her.
It appears that (apart from me), almost all posters - posters on the abduction side, and posters on the opposite "non-abduction" side - and Mr Amaral, and SY too (judging by their press releases) all think that the Smith sighting is pivotal to the case.
It's risky enough when one investigator puts all their eggs in one basket in an unsolved case. It is very strange when (almost) all investigators, real, and armchair of both opposite sides, put all their eggs in the same basket, and an absurdly unlikely one at that, just IMO.
We have not seen Crecheman's statement.
We have not seen the statements of the other MW guests who used the Tapas Bar & restaurant that night.
We have not seen the statements of the Thomas Cook guests who used the Tapas Bar & restaurant that night.
We have not seen the full Berry/Balu statements for that night.
We have not seen a statement from the lady who was being visited in Block 6.
We have not seen statements from owner/occupiers who may have walked up RGdM after visiting the restaurants/pubs on Rua Direta.
Quite how anyone can come to the conclusion as to who saw who without access to all the available witness statements is beyond me. Yet, strangely, when some witnesses said that they saw someone in the vicinity before or after the discovery, their testimonies are dismissed as inaccurate by those who doubt the abduction.
No-one apparently saw where Smithman came from. No-one saw where he went. Was the only logistical nightmare in Luz between 9 & 10pm around the Tapas Bar/Block 5?
If we have not seen statements it's because none were taken by the PJ. According to the Tapas booking sheets only MW guests dined there. The lady in Block 6 must have known about the police command post so she had the opportunity to speak to them if she wished to. Block 6 was visited, apartment by apartment on 4th, so all the occupants had an opportunity to share what they knew with the police. Neil Berry and Raj Balu were pictured in the car park of Block 5, near to the police but obviously thought they had nothing to share at that point.
4th May;
the witness went to meet GNR officers whom she cannot identify, to open the doors for them and speak to guests staying in apartments in block 6. The objective was for the police to talk to these guests and show them the photo of the girl and establish whether they had any information that could lead to discovering her whereabouts.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA-CASTELA.htm
Was the Tapas Bar, as opposed to the restaurant, also only for the exclusive use of MW guests? That wouldn't have been good for profits or pleased the TC guests.
MW were allocated 20 covers in the Tapas restaurant. The restaurant can clearly seat more than 20. What is the explanation for allocation of all the other tables not taken by MW diners?
It still never ceases to amaze me that with all these people milling around, wandering up and down between the tapas and block 5, staff members, locals visiting, smokers puffing in the shadows, tourists watching from balconies etc etc etc that only one person saw what appeared to be this elusive abductor but even her testimony has now been questioned by SY.The logical answer to that is that maybe there was nothing to see
How does one abduct a kid in such circumstances and disappear into the ether?
My point was, more, that I think the Smiths are being unfairly slated (in certain quarters) for 'not coming forward' before.
Judgement about the value or worth of statements (necessarily and by definition) must, always, be retrospective.
Beforehand, you just can't know.
There are exceptions Merc like cases where a burglar carries a visible TV in his arms through the streets, but they are very low IQ and unresourceful perps.
Amaral's Smithman theory and OG's Smithman theory both assume a perp that was so stupid that he chose an absurd transport method of carrying, unconcealed and plainly visible to all, through populated streets.
It is fairly obvious that if someone is covertly transporting something you are not going to see what they are transporting even if they go straight past you.
Abduction theorists for example Mr Redwood and Ferryman appear to bet everything on the Smith Sighting.
Body-transportation theorists for example Mr Amaral and Pathfinder appear to bet everything on the Smith Sighting.
Common-sense however indicates that no perp of either kind would use such a silly method IMO.
(snip) ... tentative identification ...(snip)I watched Crimewatch and don't recall Mr Redwood using the word "tentative" about the identifiction of JTman.
I watched Crimewatch and don't recall Mr Redwood using the word "tentative" about the identifiction of JTman.It seemed to keep on changing over the years.
What I recall are the words "almost certain" and "revelation".
It seemed to keep on changing over the years.Operation Grange described their identification of JTman as "almost certain" and "a revelation"
Operation Grange described their identification of JTman as "almost certain" and "a revelation"
OG have never described it as "tentative".
I watched Crimewatch and don't recall Mr Redwood using the word "tentative" about the identifiction of JTman.
What I recall are the words "almost certain" and "revelation".
Operation Grange described their identification of JTman as "almost certain" and "a revelation"
OG have never described it as "tentative".
Tentative = not certain.And how do you re-define "uncannily striking" Brietta?
Almost = not quite; very nearly.
There are exceptions Merc like cases where a burglar carries a visible TV in his arms through the streets, but they are very low IQ and unresourceful perps.
Amaral's Smithman theory and OG's Smithman theory both assume a perp that was so stupid that he chose an absurd transport method of carrying, unconcealed and plainly visible to all, through populated streets.
(snip) it could have been anytime between (if we believe all statements) 9.10 and then... (snip)"between 03 May 21.10 and ?" is free of illogical assumption Merc
At what time between 9.10 and 10? is IMO a classic example of asking a drastically wrong question Merc.Why is it a wrong question?
Why is it a wrong question?Because it's an incorrectly restricted window Merc IMO.
Because it's an incorrectly restricted window Merc IMO.whats the correct one?
whats the correct one?It''s "Between 03 May 21:10 and ?" Merc
It''s "Between 03 May 21:10 and ?" Merc
It's quite simple Robbity,"abduction" means illegally taking a live person, "non-abduction" covers everything else.So abduction in your opinion is always illegal? I wonder if that is strictly true by definition.
I agree with Mr Amaral, the two Crimewatch efits were not made not by members of the Smith group IMO.
Mr Amaral is wrong, and so (rarely) are you (on this occasion, pegasus.do we only have his word for that?
It has been confirmed in an FOI answer to a question by Tony Bennett that the efits were produced by the Irish family.
FOI request: Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2014090001604 19 September 2014 to Metropolitan Police - answered 18 October 2014:
[..]
At Question 4 you asked:
Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually other witnesses? If so, please state who they were.
The MPS response is: The programme was referring to members of the Irish family who created the e-fits.
At Question 5 you asked:
Are the e-fits of the same man, or not?
The MPS reponse is: Yes, they are the same man.
I don't think the question is concise to begin with, Mercury. It didn't specify "Smith". Therefore in a resort hugely popular with the Irish the "members of the Irish family" response may not necessarily refer to the family the questioner thought he was asking about.
Mr Amaral is correct. The phonecall at 10:55am on 20 Sept 2007 was documented by the british police Robbity.@ Pegasus - How did you ever find that out? Why did you ever find that out? Were the public aware there was a Smith family sighting at that stage? Would it be possible for someone to impersonate Mr. Smith? A phone call isn't that hard is it.
I agree with Mr Amaral, the two Crimewatch efits were not made not by members of the Smith group IMO.No one around here believes opinion, what facts do you have Pegasus?
The programme itself only made reference to the one Irish family & the sighting on Rua 25 d A. at around 10pm so it must be the Smiths.
Almost 3 months after Mr Amaral was taken off the case, the Irish police, on behalf the PJ Rebelo (not Amaral) investigation, took this statement from the witness on 23 Jan 2008.A statement like that seems totally false to me, why would he not sleep for 11 days and nights, that shows he is totally nuts IMO.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm#p16p4134
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
Liam Hogan
Yep.
I've never had any problem with Martin Smith.
A genuine witness who recognised he made an (honest) error in mis-identifying Gerry as the man he and his family all saw.
Cite or remove.
A statement like that seems totally false to me, why would he not sleep for 11 days and nights, that shows he is totally nuts IMO.
(snip) ,,, witness who recognised he made an (honest) error in mis-identifying ...(snip)Here is his statement to police on 23 Jan 2008 (about 4 months after first making the identification).
Quote
Months after the disappearance and after seeing Gerry McCann on TV, Mr Smith told police that he thought the man he saw carrying a girl around Madeleine’s age at the very time she went missing reminded him of Gerry McCann himself.
Mr Smith has reportedly since withdrawn that claim – just as Portuguese police have officially told the McCanns they are no longer suspects for their daughter’s disappearance.
The couple have also won libel damages for false suggestions that they were in any way involved.
Numerous witnesses have also given statements making clear that Mr McCann was at his holiday complex at the moment the sighting occurred – which was at the very time when he and his wife started calling for help looking for Maddie.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2478087/Why-Madeleine-McCann-suspect-E-fits-kept-secret-5-years.html#ixzz4ISb3OEgG
"I would be 60-80% sure that it was ........" is a doubt? That's a pretty strong statement accusing somebody of carrying a child. You don't discard leads like that without further investigation.
That was investigated and the man found. Smithman is not so the investigation continues........
A statement like that seems totally false to me, why would he not sleep for 11 days and nights, that shows he is totally nuts IMO.
Missing child was wearing top with very short-sleeves.
Child seen by witness AS was wearing top with long sleeves.
Deduction: not the same child.
... Maybe she got the sleeve length wrong.IMO that sounds like rewriting a witness statement to fit a theory Misty.
IMO that sounds like rewriting a witness statement to fit a theory Misty.
I wouldn't do anything like that, Pegasus. 8)--))Seriously, draw an efit of the missing child.
You know my thoughts on Smithman.
Seriously, draw an efit of the missing child.
Then draw an efit of the child seen by witness AS.
The 2 efits totally do not match.
A theory which is disproven by a single plausible witness statement is an incorrect theory.
"Pass the typex, ignore the witness, let's change long to short" is not the way to solve a case.
No, because there is definitely another witness for the very short sleeves Merc.Who? KM?
You have to look at the real reason behind the efits not matching imo. The carrier was the focus of attention, not the child.If you draw an efit of the missing child, and an efit of the child seen by AS (Crimewatch didn't do either), the huge difference is obvious - the sleeve length.
Gonçalo Amaral claimed that the e-fits were effectively a ruse created in order
to discredit the Smith sighting and were not based on the Smith recollections.
Key witness identified the father of Maddie
(http://i.imgur.com/zjaxBkw.jpg?1)
21 October 2013
Gonçalo Amaral reveals that key testimony was undervalued at the time of disappearance
Key witness identified the father of Maddie. Gonçalo Amaral reveals that key testimony was undervalued at the time of disappearance. The testimony of one of the Smith family members who identified Gerry McCann as the man who saw the night of the disappearance of Maddie carrying a child in her arms the way to the beach [Light] was devalued after I leave the case. "It's a lie that the portrait e-fit that the British police released is now based on the testimony of the Smith family."
"The statements are Gonçalo Amaral, former coordinator of the PJ who investigated the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the Correio da Manha. And come in following the pictures robot disclosure by the Scotland Yard pointing one of the drawings as the main suspect in the alleged abduction of the English child, the May 3, 2007 - who claim to have been made based on the testimony of an Irish family vacationed in Praia da Luz when Maddie disappeared.
"The Smith family told us what they saw that night. A man, alien, athletic, burned face from the sun, like the tourists, and hid his face not to be seen with a blonde child in her arms,"said Goncalo Amaral. "Shortly thereafter, when the McCann family ' fled 'to the UK, and were greeted at the airport by TV, a Smith family member called us, very distressed. Gerry [father of Maddie], which was off the plane, was the man that Mr. Smith had seen carrying a child that night," explained the former coordinator. For Gonçalo Amaral, "there was a positive identification, which was set aside." "The McCanns hired detectives who made a picture, a man like Gerry, to devalue the testimony," he said.
http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/nacional/portugal/detalhe/testemunha-chave-identificou-pai-de-maddie.html
66
A small question. Why didn't Amaral organise efits himself when he got family members back over in May 2007?
A small question. Why didn't Amaral organise efits himself when he got family members back over in May 2007?It could be argued either way, but I could imagine the phone call from Martin Smith was all GA needed. The McCanns would also argue that the E-fit was too much like Gerry as the Smith's memories were contaminated by what they saw when Gerry came off the plane.