Richard Hall's film 'When Madeleine Died?' uploaded to YouTube 19th Feb

[Carana]

I think it would be fair to say that both the anecdotal evidence from people in Praia da Luz on that day (Thursday 3 May) and any reliable weather date we have for that day broadly coincide. I think we can probably agree the following:

1. There had been cooler, cloudier conditions on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

2. During the course of Thursday, these cooler, cloudier conditions gradually yielded to warmer, sunnier weather in the late afternoon/early evening.

3. That Last Photo is said to have been taken at 2.29pm Portugal/GB time.

4. Around 1pm, the temperature peaked at only 17C (63F), then fell back a little, then rose late afternoon to 19F (66C).

5. Cloud cover probably abated gradually during the day.

6. It is quite possible that there could have been a sunny interval causing the sun to shine at 2.29pm that afternoon.

7. It was unarguably warm and sunny on the Sunday, with a temperature maximum around 2.29pm of 21C (70F).

------------

However, whether the sun was actually shining at 2.29pm is essentially beside the point.

The Last Photo is evidence. It is a genuine, unphotoshopped, photo.

A dispute has arisen as to whether it might have been taken on a different day.

We are entitled, inter alia, to examine the contents of the photograph to see which date best fits what we see. I appreciate that the EXIF metadata say it was taken on 3 May, but then we know it is a relatively simple issue to alter the metadata.

This is what we see in the photograph:

* Gerry in shorts
* Gerry in T-shirt
* Gerry with sunglasses
* Gerry with sheen of perspiration on his forehead
* Gerry with his feet in a cold pool
* Madeleine in light clothing - no trousers
* Madeleine with sun-hat
* Amelie in light clothing - no trousers
* Amelie with sun-hat
* No sign of any cooling breeze.

Also:

1. Although it was claimed that Gerry bought sunglasses at the beach on Tuesday, it is surely more likely than not that he brought a pair of sunglasses with him on holiday.

2. The 'Last Photo' scene of Gerry and his two children by the pool on a sunny day was actually embellished in the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special, which showed Gerry, Kate and Madeleine happily kicking their feet in the water.

Now, I am fully aware that on this forum there are some people who are very well informed and briefed.

The very same people are good, persistent debaters who generally give no quarter.

I respect their knowledge and abilities.

However, given the information we have about the Last Photo, and given what we know about the likely weather at 2.29pm on Sunday and Thursday respectively, no matter how hard people may try and get round the situation, it is inevitable that many people, examining the evidence impartially, may well draw the conclusion that it is far more likely than not that the Last Photo was taken on the Sunday.                  


                     

I don't see how you have managed to jump from the points that you've listed (some of which are obvious, e.g. what Gerry and Amelie / Madeleine were wearing in the photo) to your conclusion that "it is far more likely than not that the Last Photo was taken on the Sunday".

[ShiningInLuz]

Could you clarify for us how these two errors in the programme may have prevented someone watching from coming forward with information that may have been relevant to the investigation?

The first error does not.

The second error says Smithman has to stick his head in the noose, saying he is the guilty party.  Of being there at the time.  Then he has to prove that he is innocent.  That he has some reason for being there, at that time, with a child.

He has to prove his innocence.  Hardly likely to bring Smithman forward.

Crimewatch 2013, within Portugal, was a disaster.  Perhaps it went better in other countries.

[Alfred R Jones]

The first error does not.

The second error says Smithman has to stick his head in the noose, saying he is the guilty party.  Of being there at the time.  Then he has to prove that he is innocent.  That he has some reason for being there, at that time, with a child.

He has to prove his innocence.  Hardly likely to bring Smithman forward.

Crimewatch 2013, within Portugal, was a disaster.  Perhaps it went better in other countries.

I'm sorry, you've completely lost me.  Why would someone not come forward because of this error, specifically?  If the reconstruction had shown him in the position you think it should have shown him why would that make someone more likely to come forward, and why would they not be "sticking head in noose" in that case also? 

[ShiningInLuz]

I'm sorry, you've completely lost me.  Why would someone not come forward because of this error, specifically?  If the reconstruction had shown him in the position you think it should have shown him why would that make someone more likely to come forward, and why would they not be "sticking head in noose" in that case also?

OK, let's try simpler.

Smithman has 'got away with it' for 9 years.

Why come forward now and say, I am your prime suspect.

Not exactly the motivation Smithman needs to step into the limelight.

[Alfred R Jones]

OK, let's try simpler.

Smithman has 'got away with it' for 9 years.

Why come forward now and say, I am your prime suspect.

Not exactly the motivation Smithman needs to step into the limelight.

that really doesn't address my question regarding the error of his physical position in the reconstruction.  what you seem to be suggesting now is that the reconstruction was pointless regardless of the errors as it would have put Smithman off from coming forward, or at least that's how it seems but you're not making yourself very clear.

[Brietta]

OK, let's try simpler.

Smithman has 'got away with it' for 9 years.

Why come forward now and say, I am your prime suspect.

Not exactly the motivation Smithman needs to step into the limelight.

I imagine that police investigations, even into cold cases, can sometimes be solved by information given to them by members of the public.  One individual may be in possession of a fact which might be trivial in itself but which, unknown to that individual slots neatly into place in an overall picture.

I accept what you say about the gross violation the release of the McCann files into the public domain had of making people think twice about the lack of confidentiality of witness statements.

I am puzzled about your claim that there are individuals in Luz and the environs who are so resentful of the 'McCann effect' that they are prepared to sit on information which may be of assistance to the present investigation.

Bearing in mind if they have any such information ... logic dictates they had it in 2007 when it really mattered ... or that some suspicion has been raised in their minds by events or an individual in the intervening period.

A child is missing, and has been for nine years and as far as I can see you have detailed that sheer bloody mindedness about the inconvenience and bad publicity generated as a result has led to people who have information to refuse to divulge it.

I doubt if any amount of appeals for information, however perfectly presented, would have any effect at all on these despicable people and their inexcusable refusal to divulge their snippet of information which for all they know might be crucial.

Apparently there have been no repercussions against the innocent dad seen by Jane Tanner.  Why therefore should an innocent Smithman have any fear about recognising and identifying himself?

[Benice]

I used to think Smithman must be the abductor because otherwise he would have come forward.

However, having learned of the interrogation methods of the PJ - especially Tavares and  Amaral,  I do wonder whether this man was indeed an innocent father who had picked his child up - say from his mother's for instance and was simply carrying her home.     Would he want to come forward - or would he decide he wasn't going to risk it - because he knew the reputation of the PJ - and he knew all about the Cipriano case?

Normally one would expect the family of that child to be ringing the PJ saying - 'No that was my son picking his daughter up from my house - I'd been babysitting'  - or even his wife saying ' No that was my husband collecting our daughter from his moms.'      However if they were frightened of what might happen to their son/husband  - once he got inside a police station - then IMO they were far more likely to say   'No - keep out of it - or they might decide it was you'

The fact that Mrs Murat had a table set up specifically because she knew people were scared to go to the police with info  backs  up that possibility imo.

The more time that passed the harder it would be to come forward IMO.

I'm not claiming that is what happened but I'm sure it was a possibility which SY would not have dismissed out of hand.

I do wonder if there are other locals  - who even if they did have info - decided not to get involved for the same reason.


 

[Brietta]

I used to think Smithman must be the abductor because otherwise he would have come forward.

However, having learned of the interrogation methods of the PJ - especially Tavares and  Amaral,  I do wonder whether this man was indeed an innocent father who had picked his child up - say from his mother's for instance and was simply carrying her home.     Would he want to come forward - or would he decide he wasn't going to risk it - because he knew the reputation of the PJ - and he knew all about the Cipriano case?

Normally one would expect the family of that child to be ringing the PJ saying - 'No that was my son picking his daughter up from my house - I'd been babysitting'  - or even his wife saying ' No that was my husband collecting our daughter from his moms.'      However if they were frightened of what might happen to their son/husband  - once he got inside a police station - then IMO they were far more likely to say   'No - keep out of it - or they might decide it was you'

The fact that Mrs Murat had a table set up specifically because she knew people were scared to go to the police with info  backs  up that possibility imo.

The more time that passed the harder it would be to come forward IMO.

I'm not claiming that is what happened but I'm sure it was a possibility which SY would not have dismissed out of hand.

I do wonder if there are other locals  - who even if they did have info - decided not to get involved for the same reason.

There seems to be few statements volunteered by ex-pats in full time residency and other locals without direct association with MW in the files.  I thought that was simply because they hadn't seen anything worth relaying to the police.

Perhaps real fear of the police was the reason???
A great pity, because they were better placed to notice unusual behaviour or strangers than the holidaymakers who did volunteer such information.

[mercury]

Nothing strange about  that IMO...in the UK you can report a crime and get investigated yourself...imagne saying it was you with another child NOT the abducted one....I mean just doing yiur shopping in a supermarket on a weekend with your child who looks a little like MM can have you down in the labs getting your dnas extracted!

[Benice]

There seems to be few statements volunteered by ex-pats in full time residency and other locals without direct association with MW in the files.  I thought that was simply because they hadn't seen anything worth relaying to the police.

Perhaps real fear of the police was the reason???
A great pity, because they were better placed to notice unusual behaviour or strangers than the holidaymakers who did volunteer such information.

The impression I used to have is that PdL was practically 'closed' by 10 o'clock at night.   IIRC it was ShininginLuz who told us that this was not the case and that bars, clubs and restaurants were all in full flow'    It just seems strange to me that if that was the case no-one except the Smiths saw anything which might have been worth telling the police about.    However, it they were aware of the PJ's reputation - that would be a credible explanation for deciding it was best not to get involved.

p.s Apols to SIL if I've got that wrong.




 

[ShiningInLuz]

that really doesn't address my question regarding the error of his physical position in the reconstruction.  what you seem to be suggesting now is that the reconstruction was pointless regardless of the errors as it would have put Smithman off from coming forward, or at least that's how it seems but you're not making yourself very clear.

The recon wasn't pointless regardless of the errors.

The recon rendered the Smithman part pointless, because of the error.  Or even worse.  Smithman headed to the sea, according to Crimewatch. 

So if you vaguely thought you might have passed the Smiths that night, but you know for certain you did not head to the sea, would you enter the lions' den?  Or would you just think - nah, can't be me, I never headed to the sea?

[ShiningInLuz]

I imagine that police investigations, even into cold cases, can sometimes be solved by information given to them by members of the public.  One individual may be in possession of a fact which might be trivial in itself but which, unknown to that individual slots neatly into place in an overall picture.

I accept what you say about the gross violation the release of the McCann files into the public domain had of making people think twice about the lack of confidentiality of witness statements.

I am puzzled about your claim that there are individuals in Luz and the environs who are so resentful of the 'McCann effect' that they are prepared to sit on information which may be of assistance to the present investigation.

Bearing in mind if they have any such information ... logic dictates they had it in 2007 when it really mattered ... or that some suspicion has been raised in their minds by events or an individual in the intervening period.

A child is missing, and has been for nine years and as far as I can see you have detailed that sheer bloody mindedness about the inconvenience and bad publicity generated as a result has led to people who have information to refuse to divulge it.

I doubt if any amount of appeals for information, however perfectly presented, would have any effect at all on these despicable people and their inexcusable refusal to divulge their snippet of information which for all they know might be crucial.

Apparently there have been no repercussions against the innocent dad seen by Jane Tanner.  Why therefore should an innocent Smithman have any fear about recognising and identifying himself?

I did not follow the case until it became clear that OG was about to dig up central Luz, say May 2014.  So I am hazy about what went on before then.

AFAIK certain factions of the public turned against the McCanns early on, partly on the basis of child neglect, partly on the basis of dodgy stories emanating from Team McCann, partly from behavioural analysis.  I don't want to debate any of these points.  I'm saying simply that there are those now who condemn the McCanns on this type of basis, and there were then.

Innocent dad 1) does not appear to have come forward, rather he appears to have been dredged up by OG, 2) he had a ready made alibi, namely his child was in the crèche that night, 3) he was dealt with by OG, who washed his details to preserve his family's anonymity and 4) he was English speaking dealing with English speakers under English law.  All cute and cuddly, if possibly it involved a long bureaucratic process.

Smithman is going to get a much rougher deal, unless he is English and he steps forward.  Since at Dec 2015, SY said Smithman was still a person of interest, I am going to discount the idea that he has come forward.

Smithman has no pre-fabricated alibi.  He cannot claim his child was in the OC crèche.  He has to manufacture his own.  By that, I mean he is required to prove his innocence.  This appears to be an idea that most McCann supporters rail against, but the simple fact is Smithman will have to provide proof that he is not involved.  Perhaps Smithman can, because he has a strong alibi, and perhaps he can't because he cannot provide strong verification of his innocence.

Whichever it is, Smithman would undergo trial by ordeal.  He is clearly guilty of the heinous crime of carrying a child through the streets of Luz on 3 May 2007, therefore he is required to prove the child was not Madeleine.

If anyone thinks an innocent Smithman, who miraculously recognises himself despite the misinformation, despite being labelled as the SUSPECT, is now going to volunteer himself under these circumstances - I can only say I beg to differ, it is not going to happen this way.

Crimewatch 2013 was a bit of a disaster in Portugal, IMO. I am not going to blame OG, because I have no clear idea of the details of the deal they have with the Portuguese judicial authorities.  If that Crimewatch had been aired in Portugal, things might have been somewhat better.

Despite reinforcing the notion that the witnesses had Smithman heading to the sea.

[ShiningInLuz]

The impression I used to have is that PdL was practically 'closed' by 10 o'clock at night.   IIRC it was ShininginLuz who told us that this was not the case and that bars, clubs and restaurants were all in full flow'    It just seems strange to me that if that was the case no-one except the Smiths saw anything which might have been worth telling the police about.    However, it they were aware of the PJ's reputation - that would be a credible explanation for deciding it was best not to get involved.

p.s Apols to SIL if I've got that wrong.

The attached graphic is a bit out of date now but it is still over 95% accurate.

It is a map of Luz commercial establishments and it applies specifically to the period 8:30pm to 10:30pm on Thu 3 May 2007.

The bits with a letter in are in the PJ files and are 100% known to be open that night e.g. the Mirage, the Dolphin, the Duke, Kelly's.

The bits in green are commercial establishments know to be closed at the time e.g. Baptista supermarket shut at 8:00pm, so it should not have been generating any traffic half an hour later.

The bits in white are 'dunnos'.  For example, I know the Italian restaurant called Amicis (Friends), just N of the OG dig of Luz, opened in 2007 and its hours/days open mean it would have been open on a Thursday at the relevant time.  What I don't know is whether Amicis had opened by 3 May 2007, or whether it opened later in the season, so it gets a 'dunno'.

The bits in yellow are ones that existed, and that should have been open, according to best info on them.  'Should have' does not equal definitely were, hence they get a yellow.  Examples are the 2 Chinese restaurants operating at the time (City Sol and Royal Gardens).

Like I said, I am now aware of minor tweaks required on this graphic, but the tweaks are definitely minor.

Was Luz heaving or was Luz quiet that night?

For various reasons, I believe most bars in Luz would be quiet that night.  Kelly's definitely was.  I can think of three that probably were not, but I cannot prove this.

The situation with restaurants is harder to predict.  Since I cannot provide evidence on this, I shall not speculate.

[Mr Gray]

I did not follow the case until it became clear that OG was about to dig up central Luz, say May 2014.  So I am hazy about what went on before then.

AFAIK certain factions of the public turned against the McCanns early on, partly on the basis of child neglect, partly on the basis of dodgy stories emanating from Team McCann, partly from behavioural analysis.  I don't want to debate any of these points.  I'm saying simply that there are those now who condemn the McCanns on this type of basis, and there were then.

Innocent dad 1) does not appear to have come forward, rather he appears to have been dredged up by OG, 2) he had a ready made alibi, namely his child was in the crèche that night, 3) he was dealt with by OG, who washed his details to preserve his family's anonymity and 4) he was English speaking dealing with English speakers under English law.  All cute and cuddly, if possibly it involved a long bureaucratic process.

Smithman is going to get a much rougher deal, unless he is English and he steps forward.  Since at Dec 2015, SY said Smithman was still a person of interest, I am going to discount the idea that he has come forward.

Smithman has no pre-fabricated alibi.  He cannot claim his child was in the OC crèche.  He has to manufacture his own.  By that, I mean he is required to prove his innocence.  This appears to be an idea that most McCann supporters rail against, but the simple fact is Smithman will have to provide proof that he is not involved.  Perhaps Smithman can, because he has a strong alibi, and perhaps he can't because he cannot provide strong verification of his innocence.

Whichever it is, Smithman would undergo trial by ordeal.  He is clearly guilty of the heinous crime of carrying a child through the streets of Luz on 3 May 2007, therefore he is required to prove the child was not Madeleine.

If anyone thinks an innocent Smithman, who miraculously recognises himself despite the misinformation, despite being labelled as the SUSPECT, is now going to volunteer himself under these circumstances - I can only say I beg to differ, it is not going to happen this way.

Crimewatch 2013 was a bit of a disaster in Portugal, IMO. I am not going to blame OG, because I have no clear idea of the details of the deal they have with the Portuguese judicial authorities.  If that Crimewatch had been aired in Portugal, things might have been somewhat better.

Despite reinforcing the notion that the witnesses had Smithman heading to the sea.

your posts are showing your strong anti mccann bias in this case....when you talk of why the portuguese suspect the mccanns you fail to mention the lies told by amaral and the pj....that is a major...major omission and proves your bias...even if you are not aware of it...but I think you are

[ShiningInLuz]

your posts are showing your strong anti mccann bias in this case....when you talk of why the portuguese suspect the mccanns you fail to mention the lies told by amaral and the pj....that is a major...major omission and proves your bias...even if you are not aware of it...but I think you are

Total and utter rubbish. 

I would be more than happy to discuss the case with the McCanns, in a friendly and civil environment.  And I have explained recently where I would be happy to stand alongside Team McCann.

This was drivel, Davel.