Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?

[Brietta]

They probably didn't sit down and go through it as a group...

Nope ... I bet it wasn't discussed at all in the intervening twenty two days between Madeleine being abducted on the 3rd and them making their depositions on the 26th ... no sirree ... lips sealed.

[sadie]

...and you've got to believe the 'mirror'.

The home of Tony 'sardine munchers' Parsons.

Perhaps it's readers should use that paper for another purpose.

IMO of course.

In this instance, Stephen, you are absolutely correct.  The route the Mirror shows is totally wrong.  It is going in the wrong direction n at its southern end.

Smithman came south down Rua D'Escola.  If he took the route shown here he would have had to go north up Rua D'escola

What a nonsense the Mirror made of that... but I guess it was early days when we were all floundering.  We know better now

[John]

When one looks at the Smith's statements and in particular Aoife's statement I think the only possible conclusion one can reach is that the carrier went down the steps which the Smiths had just come up.

Had the carrier intended to turn left along Rua 25 de Abril, he would have taken a short cut at the corner (blue route}.  As it was he went right before turning left and approaching Aoife from her left (red route), a wholly roundabout route for anyone wanting to go east along Rua 25 de Abril.

[Angelo222]

All the recent publicity about Smithman and the two e-fits and not a single innocent tourist has been identified.  Speaks volumes that does imo!!!

[Carana]

Probably it covers this area. Some cameras have wide angle of view.

Perhaps the difference lies in the purpose for installing the camera - ie monitoring of private property.

All the cameras pictured appear to be sited on private property - are there any installed on the general highways, such as we see in UK ?

Between what is allowed in law, privacy concerns and the practical implementation may be different.

I had found this at some point.

Territorial privacy
Video surveillance

Law 207/200517 sets the means of any electronic (including video) surveillance for road safety used by law enforcement agencies.18 The system is limited to specific and determined purposes: catching traffic infractions, traffic control, locating stolen or illegal vehicles, and use as evidence of a crime.19 The installation of the surveillance methods should be directed, as much as possible, to capture images of vehicles.20 Information from the system may be released for didactic and statistical purposes, as long as no individuals or vehicles are identifiable.21 The CNPD published a clarification in response to many inquiries concerning the surveillance.22 The clarification states that according to the law these systems do not need CNPD approval. The equipment should be registered with the CNPD, and the make, model, and serial number of the surveillance equipment used is published on the CNPD website.

In 2006, Law 51/2006 on the use of video surveillance to monitor traffic as well as other incidents entered into force.23 That law grants permission to "Estradas de Portugal" (Roads of Portugal) to install roadway video surveillance equipment in the interests of road safety. All such installation is subjected, however, to the terms of Act No. 67/98, particularly the requirement of prior notification to the CNPD.

In August 2007, Portugal published a new law punishing improper handling of visual data with fines up to EUR 10,000 and directed captured images to be deleted if the threat did not actually materialise.24

In October 2008, three Portuguese cities were authorised to be equipped with CCTV cameras.25

On 14 July 2008, the CNPD issued an opinion on the use of video surveillance and set down conditions, including: using the system at night if possible, not recording sound, and preventing private houses from being recorded.26

https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/portugal/ii-surveillance-policies#footnote19_sqqpfib

[Carana]

All the recent publicity about Smithman and the two e-fits and not a single innocent tourist has been identified.  Speaks volumes that does imo!!!

Not necessarily. The Met is unlikely to divulge whether this person has been identified or not unless there is a need to appeal to the public with a new concrete request.

The constant dribble of half-baked tabloid leaks has unfortunately led the public to feel that they are entitled to be informed of every new detail. We're not.

[Brietta]

Not necessarily. The Met is unlikely to divulge whether this person has been identified or not unless there is a need to appeal to the public with a new concrete request.

The constant dribble of half-baked tabloid leaks has unfortunately led the public to feel that they are entitled to be informed of every new detail. We're not.

It is refreshing that this investigation now appears to be free from interference from ‘a source close to the PJ’ despite some leaks at the beginning.
When there is anything to be said it is coming from a reliable attributed source; and it is right and proper that the general public are only being told what that source has deemed to be necessary.

[Angelo222]

Had there been any identification of Smithman (guilty or innocent) we sure as hell would have heard about it.  Redwood must be pulling his hair out about now as the chickens come home to roost.

[Carana]

Had there been any identification of Smithman (guilty or innocent) we sure as hell would have heard about it.  Redwood must be pulling his hair out about now as the chickens come home to roost.

What "chickens"?

[Angelo222]

What "chickens"?

The reality chickens.  I can't wait to hear him attempt to explain away Smithman!

[Wonderfulspam]

The reality chickens.  I can't wait to hear him attempt to explain away Smithman!

He's retiring in December, jumping ship & leaving it to the next mug, innit.

[Brietta]

He's retiring in December, jumping ship & leaving it to the next mug, innit.

Not necessarily ~ it is perfectly possible the case could be solved before DCI Redwood retires.  If not the 'next mug' who is probably working the case at the moment, won't have any problem with Smithman ... and why should he/she?

[Wonderfulspam]

Not necessarily ~ it is perfectly possible the case could be solved before DCI Redwood retires.  If not the 'next mug' who is probably working the case at the moment, won't have any problem with Smithman ... and why should he/she?

Not likely though is it.

You think the case will be solved without tracing Smithman?

He was just another innocent father, wandering the streets with his Maddie lookalike daughter, innit.

[Alice Purjorick]

Had there been any identification of Smithman (guilty or innocent) we sure as hell would have heard about it.  Redwood must be pulling his hair out about now as the chickens come home to roost.

He is I fear dead, in outer space or in a Trappist Monastery. Or possibly Wonderfulspam has a point.

[stephen25000]

He is I fear dead, in outer space or in a Trappist Monastery. Or possibly Wonderfulspam has a point.

..OR MAYBE HE SPLIT HIS INFINTIVE AND BOLDY WENT, WHERE NO MAN HAS GONE BEFORE. &%+((£