CMTV Gonçalo Amaral - O Enigma - with English subtitles

[Robittybob1]

There seems to be a mix up with the closed captions on the bit discussing the Smith sightings.
https://youtu.be/tUHp85TyJ0Y?t=1328 starts off part way through a sentence:

" suspected of carrying the child on his lap here, who would be the father of the missing child would would have been at that time sitting at the restaurant table, so it would be not a certainty, therefore worth what it is worth.  If it was it was not sure what it was.   And there are testimonials from the restaurant that say he has been absent at least half an hour but also cannot locate the time, right time, so it is all close to that time from 9:30 PM to 10:00 PM but there are no certainties of the correct time."

And on it goes

[Robittybob1]

IMO Amaral does not accept that Martin Smith no longer thinks the man they saw was Gerry McCann.

[Brietta]

I believe her identification was based solely on the way he walked.  How a positive identification can be claimed on that basis is anyones guess but in any event, had he been the individual I'm sure a simple search of his nearby villa would have identified the clothing which Jane claimed the man she saw was wearing.  Again, not rocket science but good old basic detective work.

There is just so much information and misinformation doing the rounds that it is possible things were going on in the background that we will never really be able to put the finger on ... of which a terrific amount -rightly or wrongly - revolves around Murat.

Quote
Meanwhile, a high ranking regional government official has told The Portugal News he asked police to investigate Robert Murat three days after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/find-madeleine/22276

That newspaper report was dated 19-05-2007.

Chapter seven of Amaral's book describes the occasion of the arousal of his suspicions on sight of Murat:
Quote
I immediately telephone the team to alert them. The Director of the Department of Criminal Investigation in Faro has to be involved in a meeting the same morning, where we will discuss the case of Robert Murat.  Amaral
End quote

Amaral dates that as May 10.

Quote
On Tuesday, the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) announced they had questioned a suspect. He was questioned over the case of the missing British toddler, Madeleine McCann, but there was insufficient evidence to arrest or charge him.
Robert Murat, a UK citizen and long-time resident of Portugal, was declared a suspect in connection with the disappearance 15 days ago of Madeleine McCann.

Quote
An influential and high-ranking regional government official, who asked that his identity remain undisclosed “for the time-being” has told The Portugal News that it was he who told police on the morning of Sunday May 6th of his suspicions regarding Robert Murat.

While he asked to remain anonymous “for obvious reasons” he said part of the reason why he spoke to The Portugal News was to refute talk that Portuguese police had been acting on a tip-off that had originated from a British journalist’s suspsicions more than a week after Madeleine’s disappearance.

In fact, he indicated police have had an eye on Mr Murat since at least day 3 of Madeleine’s disappearance.

Quote
“I have been made a scapegoat for something I didn't do”, Murat, 33, told Sky News reporters.

http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/find-madeleine/22276

I think he may have hit the nail on the head there as it looks as if that was certainly the direction the investigation seemed to be taking.

[Benice]

I believe her identification was based solely on the way he walked.  How a positive identification can be claimed on that basis is anyones guess but in any event, had he been the individual I'm sure a simple search of his nearby villa would have identified the clothing which Jane claimed the man she saw was wearing.  Again, not rocket science but good old basic detective work.

AFAIK the only person to make this claim is Amaral in his book.   He wasn't there at the IP and he offers no evidence to back up his claim.  It is telling IMO that his description of what happened during the IP leaves out all the key elements which made it impossible for JT to make a positive identification of RM.
AIMHO 

[faithlilly]

Martin Smith stated that the man he saw was definitely not Robert Murat so he must have got a good look at his face.

This is what Martin Smith said "— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph" He didn't mention his face. If someone I didn't know passed by me just now I may not be able to recall what he looked like later, especially if I was concentrating on something else, but if someone I knew passed of course I'd recognise him. Can't you see the difference ?

John aren't you the one who pushes the idea that MS spoke to the abductor when it is quite clear from his statements that this is not the case.

I'm not entirely sure why you are trying to undermine MS as a witness.

[John]

There was a lot of emphasis of how uncomfortable Gerry was at carrying Sean off the plane after their return home.  The footage of that is covered in a low resolution video clip in this YT starting around here https://youtu.be/WWyjVmxWzDY?t=974
I have played it through several times and Sean does not look uncomfortable.  Gerry may slightly look down, it could be a reaction to the waiting press, a slight intimidation. Obviously the Martins were not aware that Gerry had a very good alibi for the time they saw the man walk past them carrying the child.

What does that mean? They seemed rather callous to begin with knowing it could be Madeleine on the 4th yet they made no contact with the PJ till weeks later. IMO.

I'm going to have to listen to the O Enigma interview to see what Amarals says about this incident.  To see if he agrees.

When you are walking down the steep steps from an aircraft it is good practice to look where your feet are going, particularly so when carrying a toddler.   Wouldn't you agree?

[G-Unit]

If you read the following in it's entirety and not just take a few words out of context , it's obvious to me that the discussion is about Fiona, Rachel and Russells  claims that Murat was there on the 3rd May.    It's not about whether JT identified him or not at that stage of the interview.

JT  is saying that she thought it was important to make it clear during this interview - the details of what happened after Murat appeared on TV and the reasons why they rang Bob Small and to clarify that she had not told anyone about the ID parade - so there was no possibility that they had colluded at the time they rang him. etc etc

 JT wanted to make it clear that none of them knew that RM had denied being there when they rang Bob Small.

IMO 'but I just thought it was'  would probably have had the word 'important etc' after it, had she finished the sentence, which would fit in with the other bolded comments in her statement.
AIMHO


Quote from JT Rog
 Reply    “Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards.  So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.
4078    “Right”.
 Reply    “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078    “No”.
 Reply    “But I just thought it was”.
4078    “Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him”.
 Reply    “Yeah I think, I just want to make it clear that from my own point of view, they gave that information as soon as it came onto Sky and asked and you know they were sort of like, oh let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”.
4078    “Yes”.
 Reply    “And I, I mean I didn’t myself see him on the night at all but somebody did say to me, who translated for you, was it the lady or the man and it, it was the lady, I said, Sylvie and I hadn’t seen a man but again I don’t know whether that has any relevance that there was somebody else there translating, you know during the night so”.
4078    “Okay, that’s certainly a point worth bringing up when we interview the other people that have seen him there on the night”.
 Reply    “Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”.
4078    “Get to the truth of the matter”?
 Reply    “Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is you know they, when they asked me to ring Bob SMALL to make these statements, we didn’t even know that he’d erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and they didn’t know that I’d done the surveillance”.
4078    “No”.
 Reply    “Because I took it seriously”.
4078    “So there’s no collaboration between you all”?
 Reply    “No”.
 4078    “(Inaudible) completely independent other than that”?
 Reply    “No, I hadn’t even, I mean when I got back, I didn’t even tell Russell what I’d done cos I took very seriously what the Police said in terms of not you know, not telling anybody”.
4078    “Yes”.
 Reply    “So I just thought it was important to say that really”.
4078    “Yes”.
 Reply    “(Inaudible), it’s not trying to build more of a case against him at all, it’s just my involvement in that side”.
4078    “Truth to what happened that night”?
 Reply    “Yeah”.
4078    “It’s, is how they’ve said it, it’s not something you concocted up between you”.
 Reply    “No, it was”.
4078    “And come to a conclusion that that must have been him”?
 Reply    “Yeah”.
4078    “That’s genuinely was something at the time”?
 Reply    “Yeah sort of at the time yeah”.

End quote

I don't see an incomplete statement there, it makes perfect sense as it stands. Even if it is incomplete you don't know what her next words would have been. They may have been 'at the time'.


Jane raises the subject pf Murat again  when asked if there's anything else she wants to talk about.
Her aim seems to be to convince people that there was no collusion between her, Fiona, Rachael and Russell to get Murat into trouble.

What I don't understand is how him being there on the evening of 3rd could get him into trouble? Most of Luz was there that night. Also, what if Jane had told them what she did? All she knew was that the police were interested in Murat. By 7am the following morning everyone knew that because the police set about searching his Mum's house.

The evidence the T3 gave reminds me of Lori Campbell's theory about him. She told Sky on 14th May;

Campbell told Sky News: 'It was just very reminiscent of the Soham murders, that was my first thought. He was hanging around, asking us questions and maybe trying to find out what we knew.'
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/apr/13/madeleinemccann.medialaw

Fiona;

That she found his behaviour so excessively strange that she stayed as far away from him as she could.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE_16_05-07.htm

Rachael;

She thought this individual?s behaviour was very strange, given the intensity of his presence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RACHAEL-OLDFIELD-11-MAY07.htm

Russell didn't find him strange until 13th, though;

He never noticed anything suspicious about Murat except for the last time he saw him when Robert was being transported in a vehicle, a green van with four windows, he does not remember the make, model or number plate and that he stopped, got out of the van, opened the back and showed photos of Madeleine and that he showed himself to be a very important person in the investigation, saying that he was providing immense help to the police in discovering the truth.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm

[John]

Amaral could have started where Rebelo did in October 2007 - by checking out the Smith family's timeline that evening beginning with the Dolphin Restaurant, Kelly's Bar & other places in the locale. Perhaps the PJ would even have been in time to retrieve the CCTV footage on the camera outside Estrela da Luz where the Smiths were staying. Instead, like the Smith family on 4/5 - 16/5 2007, he & his team chose to do nothing about it.

The reason being the alleged abductor was seen walking east by Jane Tanner and not west and then south towards hotel Estrella da Luz and the town centre.  It was only when the Smiths came forward that interest shifted, Smithman was unique to the Smiths, only they reported encountering him.

[G-Unit]

When you are walking down the steep steps from an aircraft it is good practice to look where your feet are going, particularly so when carrying a toddler.   Wouldn't you agree?

Whoever the person seen by the Smiths was, he was carrying the child exactly as Gerry was carrying his son off that aircraft;

 it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the male seen the night Maddie went missing .
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm

[John]

The different carrying techniques between Tannerman and Smithman are interesting. Madeleine was much taller than Sean so if the Smiths did see her, her legs would have extended a lot further.

[jassi]

The different carrying techniques between Tannerman and Smithman are interesting. Madeleine was much taller than Sean so if the Smiths did see her, her legs would have extended a lot further.

Was she?  I thought Madeleine was said to be short for her age.

[John]

This is what Martin Smith said "— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph" He didn't mention his face. If someone I didn't know passed by me just now I may not be able to recall what he looked like later, especially if I was concentrating on something else, but if someone I knew passed of course I'd recognise him. Can't you see the difference ?

John aren't you the one who pushes the idea that MS spoke to the abductor when it is quite clear from his statements that this is not the case.

I'm not entirely sure why you are trying to undermine MS as a witness.

What I should have posted earlier was that the stranger was clearly visible to the Smith party, they could see his head and face but because of the gloom his features were indiscernible.

Martin Smith stated that his wife offered a simple question to the stranger as to whether the child was sleeping, at no time have I ever suggested that he spoke to said stranger.

[John]

Was she?  I thought Madeleine was said to be short for her age.

[slartibartfast]

Was she?  I thought Madeleine was said to be short for her age.

Depends on what you are trying to prove...

[G-Unit]

What I should have posted earlier was that the stranger was clearly visible to the Smith party, they could see his head and face but because of the gloom his features were indiscernible.

Martin Smith stated that his wife offered a simple question to the stranger as to whether the child was sleeping, at no time have I ever suggested that he spoke to said stranger.

Mr Smith said nothing in his statements about his wife speaking to the man. In my opinion that's a rumour. Mr Smith did speak to the Mirror, apparently, in October 2013;

 “It looked as if they put 90% credence on the Jane Tanner sighting, maybe that wrong-footed them and they didn’t take our sighting as seriously. I was surprised it took six years to rule out the other sighting.”

 “We‘d all love to see the police get to the bottom of what happened.”

“We think about Madeleine a lot and we would love to see a conclusion to this case.

 “The only new thing in the investigation is the elimination of Jane Tanner’s sighting.

“Apart from that from our point of view everything else remains the same in relation to what we said to the police and the media at the time. We have nothing more to add.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-key-witness-accuses-2433328