The CCTV camera which Amaral claimed captured the image of the man carrying Madeleine.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Of course it may be that Smithman - assuming he was an abductor, that is - was familiar with the town, did his research, and carefully avoided walking past the camera.

It doesn't really tally with the general brazenness with which he was acting otherwise, though it is a possibility.

[Benice]

Indeed, the Smith family sighting was not reported for over a week - but that wouldn't have prevented police from looking at the camera earlier.

An hotel located 200m, as gilet says, from 5A, would surely be a very obvious place to investigate.

JT's sighting was reported soon after the GNR arrived on the 3rd.   That sighting should have triggered immediate action by the PJ regarding any cameras in the vicinity imo.

[Carana]

Of course it may be that Smithman - assuming he was an abductor, that is - was familiar with the town, did his research, and carefully avoided walking past the camera.

It doesn't really tally with the general brazenness with which he was acting otherwise, though it is a possibility.

Perhaps Smithman did avoid CCTV cameras. But how many did the police actually have to check in this sleepy village? And what were the results of those in the timeframe in question?

[jassi]

JT's sighting was reported soon after the GNR arrived on the 3rd.   That sighting should have triggered immediate action by the PJ regarding any cameras in the vicinity imo.

I thought Tannerman was supposed to be heading in the other direction.

[AnneGuedes]

Indeed this article is perfectly clear that Anne Guedes' claim about CCTV in public places is utterly incorrect.

I was wrong saying France managed to resist to the security utopia syndrome. 13 years after the UK the contagion reached France, under presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy.
At least there are (yet) no cameras in streets without other purpose than to be there just in case. A strong and justified motive is needed.

Gilet, as irresistibly rude as usual, is carefully omitting the rights of the public. The cameras must be very visible and their presence has to be clearly signalized. They therefore have at best a dissuading effect, they don't suppress delinquency, they shift it towards areas without control.
Here is a very interesting study (2005) about the impact of CCTVs and their real effectiveness.
It is the second meta-analysis (the first was in 2002) financed by the HO but realized by an independent entity. It's really worthwhile reading.
https://www.cctvusergroup.com/downloads/file/Martin%20gill.pdf

[Benice]

I thought Tannerman was supposed to be heading in the other direction.

It wouldn't make any difference which direction he was heading in at that stage.   Knowing that a man had been seen carrying a child which could have been Madeleine should have been enough to order a check on any cameras in the surrounding area as a matter of urgency imo.

[AnneGuedes]

I thought Tannerman was supposed to be heading in the other direction.

Yes, he was walking towards east, just turning his back to the famous CCTV of the Estrela da Luz resort. As he was walking, they could have run in the same direction as soon as Ms Tanner told the group her sighting.

[AnneGuedes]

The localisation of Mrs Murat's villa was a misfortune for Mr Murat. Tannerman, as he was walking carrying a child in a tiring position was bound to go nearby. From the 5A and in the direction followed by Tannerman, the villa seemed to be the perfect place.

[Benice]

I was wrong saying France managed to resist to the security utopia syndrome. 13 years after the UK the contagion reached France, under presidency of Nicolas Sarkozy.
At least there are (yet) no cameras in streets without other purpose than to be there just in case. A strong and justified motive is needed.

Gilet, as irresistibly rude as usual, is carefully omitting the rights of the public. The cameras must be very visible and their presence has to be clearly signalized. They therefore have at best a dissuading effect, they don't suppress delinquency, they shift it towards areas without control.
Here is a very interesting study (2005) about the impact of CCTVs and their real effectiveness.
It is the second meta-analysis (the first was in 2002) financed by the HO but realized by an independent entity. It's really worthwhile reading.
https://www.cctvusergroup.com/downloads/file/Martin%20gill.pdf

It is not rude to point out that a statement is incorrect if it is proved to be just that.

Your own comment about Gilet is both rude and totally uncalled for. IMO

[AnneGuedes]

Perhaps Smithman did avoid CCTV cameras.

Which ones ? Do you have a map with their localisation and indication of type of monitoring ? To make the cameras move and change their spotting angle, someone has to watch the monitor.

[AnneGuedes]

Then what was the point of him standing under it for this article? He blamed his officers for not having retrieved the images in time, when he was the coordinator. Did he order them to do so in due time or not? If not, why is he blaming his subordinates?

Can you provide a link to Mr Amaral blaming his subordinates ? Of course no tabloid.

[Carana]

Can you provide a link to Mr Amaral blaming his subordinates ? Of course no tabloid.

What is John's photo of Amaral under a CCTV based on?

ETA: What is this entire thread based on?

[AnneGuedes]

An hotel located 200m, as gilet says, from 5A, would surely be a very obvious place to investigate.

That's why they likely investigate that place among so many others.

[AnneGuedes]

What is John's photo of Amaral under a CCTV based on?

ETA: What is this entire thread based on?

On a tabloid !

[Carana]

On a tabloid !

So what is Amaral doing posing for a tabloid photo under a CCTV?