Author Topic: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?  (Read 155653 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Carana

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #360 on: April 03, 2014, 12:08:49 PM »
They have to investigate all possibilities because when/if they make arrests critics will say, well you never checked out tom, dick and harry and they can respond by saying we investigated all leads and these are the ones that did it  8((()*/

I agree. Eliminating what is potentially innocent to zoom in on what can't be eliminated as innocent is surely a major task in any modern investigation in order to maximise the chances of a successful prosecution. But try explaining that to a certain self-styled criminal profiler...

Offline Sherlock Holmes

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #361 on: April 03, 2014, 02:08:55 PM »
If an innocent smithman is found (both sightings discounted) where would that leave the timeline?

Interesting question, pegasus, but practically-speaking would it make much difference?

The time that Smithman was seen is virtually the same time that Kate reports having discovered Madeleine missing. That ten o clock (approx) time is always going to be there.


Offline slartibartfast

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #362 on: April 03, 2014, 03:55:36 PM »
Good thinking pathfinder. 

Also, if the perp is as influential, clever and slippery as i think he is, hopefully they will have got rid of all the other possibilities that he could have presented ... and just be able to hone in on him

...or her.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline Brietta

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #363 on: April 03, 2014, 05:25:51 PM »
on metropolitan police page there is an PDL interactive map with Taner's sighting. when you click on it  although initially there is an announcement that they may have identify this man, immediately after you watch the video with the represedation of the sighting and finally there is an appeal for informations. this means that tanerman has not ruled out completely. Or i get it wrong?

That follows my line of thought, too, Valeria.
I don't think they have categorically eliminated the man seen by Jane Tanner.  I think he remains in the frame.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Wonderfulspam

Christian Brueckner Fan Club

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #365 on: April 03, 2014, 05:55:32 PM »
Madeleine McCann: Bungling police had 'prime suspect' details for SIX YEARS without realising

The innocent dad came forward in 2007 but mistakenly remained the main focus of the hunt until this year when Scotland Yard detectives tracked him down

The innocent dad came forward in 2007 to say he was the person seen carrying a child in Portugal at the time the three-year-old vanished.

But the information was overlooked and the British holidaymaker remained the main focus of the hunt until this year when Scotland Yard detectives finally tracked him down.

The revelation will be a blow to Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry, as they endure a seventh Christmas without their oldest daughter.

The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.

He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished.

But his ‘alibi’ was only looked at this year.

A source said: “He had been clear then that he had picked her up at around the time of the sighting but for whatever reason he was not eliminated as a suspect. The fact the details of the prime suspect have been known all along doesn’t look good.”

Following Madeleine’s disappearance, Leicestershire police were responsible for collating all UK-based inquiries at the request of the Portuguese authorities.

It is not clear if the questionnaires were analysed by the British force or simply forwarded to Portugal.

Ms Tanner, a close friend of Kate and Gerry, previously told officers that she saw the dark-haired man carrying away a child wearing pink floral pyjamas at 9.15pm on May 3, 2007.

One of the so-called “Tapas Seven”, she had been dining with the McCanns in a nearby restaurant when their daughter went missing.

Her sighting meant that from 2007 onwards, Portuguese and British police presumed any abduction most probably took place between 8.30pm, when the McCanns went to dinner, and 9.15pm.

The realisation that it was a false lead has shifted detectives’ focus on to a later sighting at 10pm when an Irish family reported seeing a man walking towards the beach carrying a blonde girl in pyjamas.

The revelation was described by DCI Andy Redwood, the Met officer leading the new investigation called Operation Grange, as a “revelation moment” when it was finally made by his team.

DCI Redwood said in October: “Our focus in terms of understanding what happened on the night of May 3 has now given us a shift of emphasis. We are almost certain that the man seen by Jane Tanner is not Madeleine’s abductor.

“It takes us through to a position at 10pm when we see another man who is walking towards the ocean, close by to the apartment, with a young child in his arms.”

The innocent dad agreed to be pictured in the clothes he wore in Praia da Luz at the time to prove he was the man in the police sketch previously seen as key to cracking the case.

His two-year-old’s pink pyjamas, which were described by Ms Tanner, were also brought to Scotland Yard to help prove his innocence.

The new prime suspect was spotted by Martin Smith from Drogheda, Co Louth, as he returned to his apartment in Praia da Luz about 9.50pm.

He saw a British-looking man carrying a motionless, barefoot girl in pyjamas. Madeleine was noted to be missing by Kate at 10pm.

The Smith family provided two efit images of the man more than five years ago. However, the sighting was viewed as too late to be significant because of Ms Tanner’s sighting– which is why the efits were only released publicly in a Crimewatch appeal broadcast in October.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2460669/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapping-innocent-British-father-mistaken-key-suspect.html
Christian Brueckner Fan Club

Offline John

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #366 on: April 03, 2014, 06:18:52 PM »
on metropolitan police page there is an PDL interactive map with Taner's sighting. when you click on it  although initially there is an announcement that they may have identify this man, immediately after you watch the video with the represedation of the sighting and finally there is an appeal for informations. this means that tanerman has not ruled out completely. Or i get it wrong?

Hi valeria.  I had a look at that, the keywords appear to be 'believe we have identified'.  The Met website include the following statement...

Update on previous appeal

We believe we have identified the man who was seen by Jane Tanner carrying a child at about 21.15 near the apartment G5A. These images are the original sketch of that person made at the time together with a Met Police photo of the British holidaymaker who we have spoken to and is seen here wearing the clothes he believes he may have been wearing that evening. The images are: man holding child & man without child


www.content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Madeleine-McCann-Appeal--October-2013/1400020463601/1257246745782
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Wonderfulspam

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #367 on: April 03, 2014, 06:21:32 PM »
Hi valeria.  I had a look at that, the keywords appear to be 'may have identified'.  The Met website include the following statement...

Update on previous appeal

We believe we have identified the man who was seen by Jane Tanner carrying a child at about 21.15 near the apartment G5A. These images are the original sketch of that person made at the time together with a Met Police photo of the British holidaymaker who we have spoken to and is seen here wearing the clothes he believes he may have been wearing that evening. The images are: man holding child & man without child


www.content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Madeleine-McCann-Appeal--October-2013/1400020463601/1257246745782

If you scroll through the images on the page the words "Man now identified by Operation Grange" are written beneath the Bundleman sketch.

Christian Brueckner Fan Club

Offline Brietta

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #368 on: April 03, 2014, 06:31:32 PM »
The strange route taken by Tannerman has already been discussed on this forum  -  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2702.0

It does seem to have been a circuitous detour from the creche when carrying a sleeping child - but for a person exiting apartment 5a quite a direct one.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline peter claridge

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #369 on: April 03, 2014, 06:44:07 PM »
In the documentary provided by the McCann's they portrayed Tannerman and Smithman as the same person altering the detail of the carrying style described by the Smith family.  If they thought this then, why did they not release the e-fits provided by Mr & Mrs Smith at the time?

Also according to Oldfield
At around 21h25, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the bedroom quarters, that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was half-open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light in question was from an artificial source but not inside the bedroom, rather from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.

Oldfield again
That he did not enter the bedroom where Madeleine and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that the window curtains – green in colour – were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open. He recalls having thought that in that bedroom there was more brightness than there was in his daughter's room (where the external blinds were always fully closed), adding to have had the feeling that that light was coming from the outside – making the point that both [bedroom windows] were facing in the same direction.
 
Consequently, he admits the possibility of the light he was perceiving was owing to the blinds being raised, denying however that he was capable of assessing the height at which it may have been.
 
The question asked, he was sure that, at the time of his first being in the vicinity of Madeleine's bedroom, reported as 21h05 in the course of which he had approached the the window of that bedroom from the outside for the purpose of an auditory check, the blinds were, in his view, fully closed.
 
Consequently, he is convinced that at the time of the second check the blinds were more open than on the first check, given that he considers that the light inside the bedroom, undoubtedly coming from the outside, could not have been coming through it [the blinds] if they had been fully closed.


So the shutters must have been open prior to 9.30 giving the abductor 30+ minutes to not get very far.

Offline peter claridge

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #370 on: April 03, 2014, 06:47:53 PM »
The strange route taken by Tannerman has already been discussed on this forum  -  http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2702.0

It does seem to have been a circuitous detour from the creche when carrying a sleeping child - but for a person exiting apartment 5a quite a direct one.

Which is exactly where Jane Tanner stated he had come from, she provided a sketch to prove this
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/tanner2.jpg&target=tlx_pic89z5

Cariad

  • Guest
Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #371 on: April 03, 2014, 07:52:28 PM »
I'm perfectly happy to consider what SY says as a guideline and not absolute set in stone fact, but I can't help but notice that it seems that the very people who use DCI Redwoods "the Mccann are not suspects" as though it is an undeniable truth, seem quite happy to ignore his dismissal of Tannermen.


Offline Anna

“You should not honour men more than truth.”
― Plato

Offline peter claridge

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #373 on: April 03, 2014, 08:22:18 PM »
You mean, someone may have taken this route....... 1st one

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/RICH.htm

No, Tanner indicates the person she saw as coming from apt 5A - how could she have known this?

Offline pegasus

Re: Was Mr Smiths claim just pie in the sky after all?
« Reply #374 on: April 03, 2014, 08:38:57 PM »
Evening 28th April the Mccann family walking west  from dinner at Millenium to apartment missed a left turn and went too far west so ended up IMO walking east to reach apartment.
Just an example of tourists getting lost.