In her book Kate McCann asserts that Tannerman and Smithman are the same?

[pathfinder73]

It is certainly based on much more solid ground than the from bed fantasy.

I need to get my alibi sorted for those 2 exact times so I remember these times at all costs! 

[AnneGuedes]

I need to get my alibi sorted for those 2 exact times so I remember these times at all costs! 

For security reasons looking at the watch was needed but releasing the exact time was an error that would have made Columbo say Oh, uh, one more thing...

[pathfinder73]

For security reasons looking at the watch was needed but releasing the exact time was an error that would have made Columbo say Oh, uh, one more thing...

 

[j.rob]

The Smith sighting may well prove to be (yet another) red herring. If it WAS ......  ........... carrying Madeleine somewhere it was a remarkably risky journey. The chances of someone spotting them was quite high and their identities were not concealed.

Still, I suppose with all hell breaking loose in the resort, it might have been a  reasonable time to scuttle away, while the focus was all in and around the apartment. And I suppose if the abductor was supposed to have struck at around 9.15pm that would place Madeleine far away from the resort by the time the police were called. Hence, presumably, Kate's comment on page 90 of her book: 'Gerry told us afterwards that he he'd asked about deploying helicopters and heat-detecting equipment in the search.'

If the police were to give credence to the McCann version of events, the alleged abductor, having struck at 9.15pm could be very far away from the resort by the time the police were called and started searching.

The police were  called at 10.40pm and arrived 15 minutes later. So, if we follow the McCann version of events. the abductor had had from 915pm until 10.55pm to escape with Madeleine. That's almost an hour and three quarters. And of course, even if the police believed the McCann version of events, they would still have to take statements etc before resuming a search, leading to further delay.

On the other hand, IF the person the Smiths spotted was .......   carrying Madeleine, ......... would have left the resort at a time of heightened chaos to take Madeleine wherever he was planning to take her. He would then have been able to return while the resort was still in chaos and well before the police were called at 10.40pm.

[pathfinder73]

SY should go straight to the source i.e. Smithman and the time of that sighting at 10.03pm IMO. Even though that exact time stood out, it also corroborates with this statement.

"At around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.

When asked, she responds that she knows the time they left because her brother and father decided to go home earlier that night." (Aoife Smith)

Personal Description:
 (1) the individual was male, Caucasian, light-skinned, between 20/30 years of age, of normal complexion, normal physique, around 1.70/1.75 metres in height. At the time she saw him, she did see his face but now cannot remember. She believes that he had a clean-shaven face. She does not remember any tattoos, scars or earrings. She did not look at his ears. His hair was thick, light brown in colour, short at the back (normal) and a bit longer on the top.

The trousers he was wearing were smooth straight-legged trousers, light beige in colour, of a cotton type material, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons and without any patterns.

 She did not see what he was wearing on his top half as the child covered almost completely what he was wearing and she had no idea of what it could have been.

As regards his shoes she cannot say anything because she did not see them.

The individual's gait was normal, being able to distinguish it between walking quickly and running. He did not appear tired and walked normally while carrying the child.


(2) As regards the child the witness says she was female because she had long smooth hair, neck length, fair/brown in colour.

She is certain that the child was about four years old because her niece (who was in the group) is of the same age and same height.

 She did not see the child's face because she was lying against the individual's left shoulder in a vertical position on the front of the individual’s body. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her own body and were not wrapped around the individual who was carrying her. She did not look at the child's hands and cannot state the colour of her skin, having the feeling that it was white.

 There was nothing covering the child, a comforter/blanket or any other piece of clothing but because of the girl’s position, she only saw her from the back.

She was wearing light coloured trousers, white or light pink-coloured that may have been pyjamas. She does not remember if they were patterned as it was dark. The material was fine and could have been cotton.

 She also had a light coloured top, with long sleeves. She did not see well because the individual had his arms around the child. She is not sure if the child's top was the same colour as her trousers, saying only that it was light in colour.

When questioned regarding her shoes, she responds that she did not remember seeing any, not knowing if she was wearing shoes or not.

When asked to tell the truth, she states that what she has just stated is the truth of the facts, according to her knowledge.

 (Aoife Smith)

[AnneGuedes]

SY should go straight to the source i.e. Smithman

They're trying to eliminate him as the abductor or Madeleine as the abducted, apparently.

[pathfinder73]

They're trying to eliminate him as the abductor or Madeleine as the abducted, apparently.

I can't believe how any police force in the world could rule Smithman out like Horrocks did   8-)(--) Amaral got it right that it was Smithman and was taken off the case lol and here we are coming upto 7 years later. Even Redwood said this has been going on too long so they must know too!

He was seen between walking quickly and running. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her own body and were not wrapped around the individual.

 8-)(--)

Yeah Smithman really looks like an innocent man in desperate action running for his life  8-)(--)

[AnneGuedes]

I can't believe how any police force in the world could rule Smithman out like Horrocks did   8-)(--) Amaral got it right that it was Smithman and was taken off the case lol and here we are coming upto 7 years later. Even Redwood said this has been going on too long so they must know too!

He was seen between walking quickly and running. She appeared to be sleeping. Her arms were suspended along her own body and were not wrapped around the individual.

 8-)(--)

Yeah Smithman really looks like an innocent man in desperate action running for his life  8-)(--)

When you greet someone who doesn't answer, don't deduce s/he's rude, s/he might have a strong motive for keeping mute.

[AnneGuedes]

But to continue suggesting that Jane saw  the abductor  ...  when it flies in the face,   and contradicts the conclusion of  a two and a half year investigation by Scotland Yard that has cost seven million pounds  ? 

I re-read Mr McCann's speech to the Chamber of Commons Commission and his speech to the International Bar Association in Madrid. He always speaks of abduction, establishing it as a fact without a doubt, in spite of the AG report. It's therefore obvious who has always been leading the investigation. It went on with the review (wasn't it a McCann resquest ?) up to the day when DCI Redwood disconnected Smithman from Tannerman, alias Alibiman.
The best is certainly to maintain a low profile for a while, avoiding to publicise Smithman and mainly to associate him with a blond, white, inert little girl of 3/4. As they'll never identify him, "it will be fine" !

[j.rob]

Check out the Tapas bar waiters' accounts of who was at the table that evening. In particular the Russian waitress Starikova. Her statement says that Gerry McCann left the table for about half an hour (Smithman sighting?). Then returned to the table. Then Kate left (the 10pm 'check'. After which everyone left 'except an elderly lady.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm

It the witness accounts are reliable (and there are a lot of them so they can't ALL be wrong) then reports of Madeleine going missing started earlier than 10pm.

We KNOW that Gerry McCann was near the apartment at 9.15pm (ish - not sure how precise the timings were from Jeremy Wilkins)  as he had a conversation with Jeremy Wilkins who was trying to get his child to sleep in a buggy.

Gerry then returns to the dinner table. There are reports of Matt doing a check at 21.30pm but he did not enter the apartment so we have no idea whether Madeleine was in there at the time.

Kate gets up and does the final'check' and then raises the alarm. she claims this was at 10pm but witness reports give the timing as earlier - some even timing it before Matt's alleged 9.30pm 'check'.

Okay. So, you could say that the Jeremy Wilkins conversation was important to the McCanns as it placed Gerry around the resort on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance (as opposed to being absent for a long period of time which would raise suspicion).  If the witness accounts are accurate then Matt's 9.30pm check either didn't happen or was added for other reasons - to convey the idea that the children were checked regularly, for instance. Or perhaps to confuse the issue with regards to timings. Or maybe to have Madeleine's disappearance separated from Gerry's check at 9pm.

If it was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine that the Smiths saw just before 10pm on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance, it is possible that the timing was designed to coincided with a period of maximum commotion and chaos. People running around here, there are everywhere.

This would account for Kate claiming in her book that she raised the alarm at 10pm.

The Matt 'check' is still odd, though. Was it meant to imply that an abductor 'stole' Madeleine between 9.30pm and 10pm? But if he didn't actually go into the apartment, then, theoretically, the alleged abduction could have taken place in the period of time between Gerry's check at 9pm and Kate's at 10pm.

Although, obviously, we have the Tannerman sighting which implies that the McCanns would like us to believe that the abductor struck at 9.15pm. This then implies that Matt's check was purely to buy time an facilitate Smithman. And Tannerman was a cover and took the search in the wrong direction, to the wrong people and at the wrong time.

[sadie]

Check out the Tapas bar waiters' accounts of who was at the table that evening. In particular the Russian waitress Starikova. Her statement says that Gerry McCann left the table for about half an hour (Smithman sighting?). Then returned to the table. Then Kate left (the 10pm 'check'. After which everyone left 'except an elderly lady.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm

It the witness accounts are reliable (and there are a lot of them so they can't ALL be wrong) then reports of Madeleine going missing started earlier than 10pm.

We KNOW that Gerry McCann was near the apartment at 9.15pm (ish - not sure how precise the timings were from Jeremy Wilkins)  as he had a conversation with Jeremy Wilkins who was trying to get his child to sleep in a buggy.

Gerry then returns to the dinner table. There are reports of Matt doing a check at 21.30pm but he did not enter the apartment so we have no idea whether Madeleine was in there at the time.

Wrong again J.Rob.  Matt did check at about 21.30, but he DEFINITELY entered the apartment.  He saw the twins in their cots, he read the titles of some of the books on the shelf by the light of the lamp in the sitting room ... and he noticed a little light coming in via the window. 
As shutters do not pass light thru them that indicates that the shutters were partially open.  The abduction had taken place, it seems.

Kate gets up and does the final'check' and then raises the alarm. she claims this was at 10pm but witness reports give the timing as earlier - some even timing it before Matt's alleged 9.30pm 'check'.

Hahahaha.  So who made a statement timing it earlier, even before Matts 9.30 check?

Okay. So, you could say that the Jeremy Wilkins conversation was important to the McCanns as it placed Gerry around the resort on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance (as opposed to being absent for a long period of time which would raise suspicion).  If the witness accounts are accurate then Matt's 9.30pm check either didn't happen or was added for other reasons - to convey the idea that the children were checked regularly, for instance. Or perhaps to confuse the issue with regards to timings. Or maybe to have Madeleine's disappearance separated from Gerry's check at 9pm.

Jeez, j.rob what an evil imagination you have.  How you are twisting things.

If it was Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine that the Smiths saw just before 10pm on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance, it is possible that the timing was designed to coincided with a period of maximum commotion and chaos. People running around here, there are everywhere.
This would account for Kate claiming in her book that she raised the alarm at 10pm.

Hahahaha.  Gerry timed it when everyone was around searching ... great logic, j.rob ...Hahahaha.   You are joking, of course?

The Matt 'check' is still odd, though. Was it meant to imply that an abductor 'stole' Madeleine between 9.30pm and 10pm? But if he didn't actually go into the apartment, then, theoretically, the alleged abduction could have taken place in the period of time between Gerry's check at 9pm and Kate's at 10pm.

What's odd about it J.rob ?   A half hourly check that he was doing on his own child, so he saved Kate getting up to do one, by doing hers too.

Although, obviously, we have the Tannerman sighting which implies that the McCanns would like us to believe that the abductor struck at 9.15pm. This then implies that Matt's check was purely to buy time an facilitate Smithman. And Tannerman was a cover and took the search in the wrong direction, to the wrong people and at the wrong time.

Erm? .... Vivid imagination again j.rob.  All these things that in your mind imply other things.

Jeez!  why not just believe the Statements of so many good people ?
You seem to see something sinister in every normal thing that happened and twist everything to suit your sinister thoughts.

Try the simple route through, j.rob. 
Try believing the statements of the Tapas group, Jez Wilkins, and a number of waiters.  They ring far more true than your concoctions.

[stephen25000]

Wrong again J.Rob.  Matt did check at about 21.30, but he DEFINITELY entered the apartment.  He saw the twins in their cots, he read the titles of some of the books on the shelf by the light of the lamp in the sitting room ... and he noticed a little light coming in via the window. 
As shutters do not pass light thru them that indicates that the shutters were partially open.  The abduction had taken place, it seems.

Hahahaha.  So who made a statement timing it earlier, even before Matts 9.30 check?

Jeez, j.rob what an evil imagination you have.  How you are twisting things.

Hahahaha.  Gerry timed it when everyone was around searching ... great logic, j.rob ...Hahahaha.   You are joking, of course?

What's odd about it J.rob ?   A half hourly check that he was doing on his own child, so he saved Kate getting up to do one, by doing hers too.
Erm? .... Vivid imagination again j.rob.  All these things that in your mind imply other things.

Jeez!  why not just believe the Statements of so many good people ?
You seem to see something sinister in every normal thing that happened and twist everything to suit your sinister thoughts.

Try the simple route through, j.rob. 
Try believing the statements of the Tapas group, Jez Wilkins, and a number of waiters.  They ring far more true than your concoctions.

Please read earlier posts sadie.

Shutters do not shut out 100% of a light source.

I presume you have heard of refraction.

Meanwhile how do you know any light was on in the apartment ?

[AnneGuedes]

The Matt 'check' is still odd, though. Was it meant to imply that an abductor 'stole' Madeleine between 9.30pm and 10pm? But if he didn't actually go into the apartment, then, theoretically, the alleged abduction could have taken place in the period of time between Gerry's check at 9pm and Kate's at 10pm.

Mr Oldfield found the bedroom door "half open", in his first statement, exactly as Mr McCann said, adding "as usual"), at the same time in another room (both were interviewed in the morning).
Then Mrs McCann, on 4th of May afternoon, says she found the bedroom door fully open.
From those three statements of 4th of May, one would deduce that something happened after Mr Oldfield's visit.
But then Mr McCann changes his story on the 10th : he found the bedroom door more open that we had left it, i.e abnormally open.  So what can one deduce ?
Police officers, in a case like this one where the witness changes his/her story every time s/he interviewed and where, moreover, all stories present incompatibilities, will select the first statement and stick to it.
One fact is interesting : Mr Oldfield, in his rog, certifies that the shutters, the window and the curtains in the MC bedroom were closed. Whether he saw them in this state or invented the whole story, his statement discredits totally not Tanneralibiman, but the McCanns' red shutters/window herring.