Would a Portuguese Crimewatch have helped find Madeleine McCann?

[Alfred R Jones]

The Smith family were brought back to PDL by Amaral in May and a reconstruction conducted so your claim that the witness testimony was left 'sitting on a shelf ' is diengenious to say the least. Once Martin Smith had claimed in September that he was 80% sure the man he saw on the 3rd of May was Gerry McCann Amaral started to arrange for him to be brought back to Portugal. Unfortunately, as we now know, he was taken off the case before he succeeded.

Did Smith say he was 80% sure that the man he saw was Gerry McCann?  Or are you being slightly disingenuous yourself?

[G-Unit]

G-Unit are you talking about the CW programme because I don't remember any mention of Mrs Fenn ?

Sorry, no, the Portuguese one.

[faithlilly]

Did Smith say he was 80% sure that the man he saw was Gerry McCann?  Or are you being slightly disingenuous yourself?

He said 60-80% which, I'm sure you'll agree, amounts to the same thing.

[faithlilly]

Sorry, no, the Portuguese one.

I see. Thanks G.

[G-Unit]

Did Smith say he was 80% sure that the man he saw was Gerry McCann?  Or are you being slightly disingenuous yourself?

I've noticed you always ask questions instead of adding facts to the debate. Never mind, I'll do it for you. The answer is that Smith did say 80% as well as 60%;

I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

[Brietta]

Did Smith say he was 80% sure that the man he saw was Gerry McCann?  Or are you being slightly disingenuous yourself?

Three people amended their original statements to the police.

• Mr McCluskey
• Mrs McCluskey
• Mr Smith

What difference is there between the amended statement made by Mr McCluskey and that made by Mr Smith?

• Both watched the same news broadcasts
• Both 'recognised' an individual
• Both used almost identical phraseology in description
• Both agonised before contacting the police

Both amended statements should logically carry the same weight as they are in essence identical.  So ... wherein lies the difference?

Apart from the obvious.

Mr McCluskey saw what he said he saw we know this because his original witness statement was checked out and explained.

It seems no-one bothered to think about taking steps to check out Mr Smith's original witness statement until October.

[ShiningInLuz]

There is a suggestion that there are many avenues of investigation which were ignored and many investigative opportunities neglected once Mr Amaral had decided that Madeleine was dead.  A thesis for which there is not a shred of evidence.

It appears that the gap between the taking of the three Smith statements and the decision to look for the man they said they had seen on the night Madeleine disappeared substantiates the inept investigation.

I can think of no other valid explanation for the failure to properly check out eye witness testimony given in May and left sitting on a shelf until October than a totally botched appraisal of the evidence.

The statements do not appear to have received the proper diligence ... it took the Rebelo investigation to check the statements on the 10th of October http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm#p10p3276 ... a competent investigation would have checked that out at the time and when the staff on duty might have had a better chance of recalling the large family visit.

I believe this actually falls into the unturned stones category - unturned by Amaral. unturned by Rebelo and unturned by SY, as none of these knows how Kelly's works, why Kelly's was quiet that night, or why the Smiths should go to Kelly's from the Dolphin.

[Carana]

I can appreciate that it would have been a difficult time for Mr Amaral.

Nothing highlighted the failures of his investigation more clearly than the reopening of Madeleine McCann's case by SY compounded by the PJ reopening their own investigation.
Both relied on 'new' evidence.

Bearing in mind that there has probably never been an investigation of any kind that didn't have its flaws or where different decisions might have produced better results ... perhaps he could have approached the CW revelations in a more positive way than raking over the ashes of his tenure.

That's my view as well.

I just feel sad that the perspective of the CMTV show (only weeks after the CW appeal) was to reinforce - yet again - the original PJ view in public opinion so many years on, with so many inaccuracies, as a knee-jerk reaction to the CW programme as opposed to setting pride aside to help find what really happened to this child.

[Carana]

I believe this actually falls into the unturned stones category - unturned by Amaral. unturned by Rebelo and unturned by SY, as none of these knows how Kelly's works, why Kelly's was quiet that night, or why the Smiths should go to Kelly's from the Dolphin.

They'd gone to eat out (on the last night for some of the family), and decided to stop off somewhere else on the way home.

I don't see anything odd about that at all.

[Alfred R Jones]

I've noticed you always ask questions instead of adding facts to the debate. Never mind, I'll do it for you. The answer is that Smith did say 80% as well as 60%;

I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

What is wrong with "only asking questions"?  60% is 20% less than 80% and 60% sure is even less sure than 80% sure, don't you agree?

[G-Unit]

Three people amended their original statements to the police.

• Mr McCluskey
• Mrs McCluskey
• Mr Smith

What difference is there between the amended statement made by Mr McCluskey and that made by Mr Smith?

• Both watched the same news broadcasts
• Both 'recognised' an individual
• Both used almost identical phraseology in description
• Both agonised before contacting the police

Both amended statements should logically carry the same weight as they are in essence identical.  So ... wherein lies the difference?

Apart from the obvious.

Mr McCluskey saw what he said he saw we know this because his original witness statement was checked out and explained.

It seems no-one bothered to think about taking steps to check out Mr Smith's original witness statement until October.

There are differences. Mr McCluskey contacted the police again because he recognised Kate McCann as the woman he saw that night.

In my original statement I described a distressed female who ran down a road towards a white van I had described.

Having viewed recent news footage of Mrs McCann I am now almost certain that she is the female I described as being in a distressed state. I say this because of her slight build, high cheekbones and her eyes and hairstyle.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm

[ShiningInLuz]

They'd gone to eat out (on the last night for some of the family), and decided to stop off somewhere else on the way home.

I don't see anything odd about that at all.

I see it as very interesting indeed.

Pregnant wife, feeling unwell.  Peter says early flight, Aoife says early flight, Martin (IIRC) says very early flight and he was driving.

Alcohol in the Dolphin if they wanted another round, but they chose to go to a bar.  It's not on the way home, though it's not far off the route.

Aoiffe says 30 mins in Kelly's, the men say 40+ mins, yet the trio broadly agrees when they left Kelly's.

Given the importance of the timing of the Smithman encounter, if I was in OG I would want to nail this one down.  Of course, it could be that OG already has.

[Brietta]

I see it as very interesting indeed.

Pregnant wife, feeling unwell.  Peter says early flight, Aoife says early flight, Martin (IIRC) says very early flight and he was driving.

Alcohol in the Dolphin if they wanted another round, but they chose to go to a bar.  It's not on the way home, though it's not far off the route.

Aoiffe says 30 mins in Kelly's, the men say 40+ mins, yet the trio broadly agrees when they left Kelly's.

Given the importance of the timing of the Smithman encounter, if I was in OG I would want to nail this one down.  Of course, it could be that OG already has.

I had until quite recently assumed that both sightings of a child carrier were reported to the authorities contemporaneously and found it puzzling that the Smith sighting was not reported until a fortnight after the event.

Given the saturation news coverage of Madeleine McCann's disappearance I am puzzled why memories had to be jogged to recall the sighting.

Was the memory in reference to the night of May third ... or might it have been on another occasion that the family passed a man carrying a child on their way home? 
A prompt and public request might have nailed that one with others coming forward to say they had seen the Smiths ~ they had seen the man in the area ~ or that they had seen both Smiths and man.

I do not think a heavily pregnant woman who felt unwell would welcome going from one hostelry to another ... unless it was for the express purpose of the need to visit the toilet ... and I think a caring family would be anxious to get her, and the younger children , home to bed. 

[pegasus]

@Shining. In Kellys or similar is it pay for drinks when you get them or tab and pay when you leave?

[ShiningInLuz]

I'm trying to decipher the CMTV alternative to the Crimewatch appeal. I can't catch every word, but FWIW, some notes. Perhaps a PT speaker could confirm or correct:

...

Then interview with GA & Moita Flores...

The envelope shaped button on the bottom of the YouTube video says it is subtitles/CC.  I have only checked a very small amount at the beginning of the intro, but it appears to be a 100% match for the Portuguese spoken (in Portuguese, of course).

ETA.  Nope, it seems to be some automatic guessing software that corpses on Gerry and Kate.