CMTV Gonçalo Amaral - O Enigma - with English subtitles

[G-Unit]

How did Amaral know what was in statements covered by judicial secrecy but received after he has been removed from the investigation?
For ease of reference, the attached post goes someway to explaining (or not) that particular questionnaire which resulted fom the Gaspars approaching the police rather than the other way around.
If Amaral was

https://mmknowthetruth.blogspot.co.uk/2016_12_07_archive.html

On the 16th of May 2007, two doctor friends of the McCanns, and the Paynes, make a statement to Leicestershire Police (LP) in which they express their concern over sexually suggestive gestures made by David Payne on a previous holiday in Majorca. These alleged gestures are considered, by one of the witnesses, to be consistent with acts of paedophilia.

The statements are not sent from LP to the Policia Judiciária (PJ) until 24 October 2007 (arriving on 26 October 2007), 24 days after Gonçalo Amaral had been removed from the investigation.

In an interview with Correio da Manhã, published on 24 July 2008, Gonçalo Amaral states that the depositions arrived in May, but this refers to the date they arrived at LP.

Intriguingly, the letter from LP mentions the completion of a written questionnaire - by David and Fiona Payne - but it is unclear whether that questionnaire was supplied by the PJ or whether it was instigated by LP themselves. There appears to be no copy of the questionnaire anywhere in the PJ files.

Correio da Manhã reports, on 19 July 2008, that 'the depositions ... only entered the process in January 2008 ... At that point in time, Kate and Gerry were already arguidos, the rogatory letters had already been issued and the English, including Dave, showed their reluctance in returning to Portugal.' However, this statement, about the depositions only entering the process in January 2008, does not appear to be supported by the PJ files themselves.

That's interesting, but not relevant to the questionnaire question. There are none in the files, so nothing to suggest they were forwarded.

[misty]

That's interesting, but not relevant to the questionnaire question. There are none in the files, so nothing to suggest they were forwarded.

Then why did you raise the other questionnaire which bore no relevance to those which would have been issued to the UK holidaymakers staying at OC on 3/5/2007?
It would be really interesting to know when Crecheman's completed questionnaire was received by LP, i.e. before or after the Smith family came forward.

[G-Unit]

Then why did you raise the other questionnaire which bore no relevance to those which would have been issued to the UK holidaymakers staying at OC on 3/5/2007?
It would be really interesting to know when Crecheman's completed questionnaire was received by LP, i.e. before or after the Smith family came forward.

I raised the questionnaire, as I said, because it seemed LP had a copy but the PJ did not. If they didn't have that one, and none of them are in the files, that suggests that no questionnaires were sent to Portugal.

This also suggests that the questionnaires were kept by LP as once more they are giving information to the PJ about their contents;

Jane TANNER's Questionnaire states that she returned to the UK from Praia Da Luz on 17th May 2007. The Additional Family Member Questionnaire, for Russell O'BRIEN, gives his height as 6'6".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ASSORTED_SIGHTINGS_6.htm

[misty]

I raised the questionnaire, as I said, because it seemed LP had a copy but the PJ did not. If they didn't have that one, and none of them are in the files, that suggests that no questionnaires were sent to Portugal.

This also suggests that the questionnaires were kept by LP as once more they are giving information to the PJ about their contents;

Jane TANNER's Questionnaire states that she returned to the UK from Praia Da Luz on 17th May 2007. The Additional Family Member Questionnaire, for Russell O'BRIEN, gives his height as 6'6".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ASSORTED_SIGHTINGS_6.htm

If you read the full page you will see that certain questions were asked of JT & ROB as a result of a witness report to the Portuguese police by J Conroy implicating the two were at Varna airport with Madeleine. It clearly states that the required answers were sent to DI Mick Graham Task Portugal & as this report is in the PJ files they have clearly been sent the info.

[faithlilly]

Crecheman was unsure who Jane saw when he completed his questionnaire. He thought it may be him. Without knowing precisely what he saw when walking past Block 5 or who he saw (if anyone) when he looked down RDFGM before crossing the road it would be difficult to say that he was being used in any manner. IMO.

Misty you have absolutely no grounds for your belief other than desperately wanting Tannerman still to be the individual who abducted Madeleine.

[faithlilly]

The part I have never understood is why Redwood wasn't 100% convinced by crècheman.  Surely the chances of two identical/identically dressed men carrying identical children just happening to be there that night is infinitesimally small?

Make that three. In Misty's theory we have Crecheman, Tannerman and Smithman all carrying bare-footed Madeleine lookalikes.

[faithlilly]

Jane's description was as good as it could have been in the circumstances. None of the Smiths could fully describe a man who had allegedly passed within 6 feet of them & even a combination of statements could provide one very detailed description. Jane was at least 30ft away from Tannerman & only had a few seconds sight of side profile to work with.

Yet she could see a tiny pattern on the child's pyjamas and the style of shoes of the alleged abductor

[G-Unit]

If you read the full page you will see that certain questions were asked of JT & ROB as a result of a witness report to the Portuguese police by J Conroy implicating the two were at Varna airport with Madeleine. It clearly states that the required answers were sent to DI Mick Graham Task Portugal & as this report is in the PJ files they have clearly been sent the info.

No questions were asked unless you can give a cite. The information is taken from their questionnaires. I don't know who the police officer is addressing, it doesn't say, but he tells them he has sent the info to Graham, not the questionnaire.

[misty]

No questions were asked unless you can give a cite. The information is taken from their questionnaires. I don't know who the police officer is addressing, it doesn't say, but he tells them he has sent the info to Graham, not the questionnaire.

The copy of the questions is not in the files. The reason for the questions is, and those reasons came from Portugal. The PJ files have the copy of the answer on the files. How much clearer could it be?

[misty]

Yet she could see a tiny pattern on the child's pyjamas and the style of shoes of the alleged abductor

Can you tell me how someone got this.....(summary of Jane's statement)
*snipped*
JT was confronted by information that the police technical team could find no indication that Madeleine had passed the junction where she indicated that a man had been carrying a girl in his arms. JT stood by her original statement. At the time she gave little importance to seeing this therefore common sight at Ocean Club. But she did think it was strange that the child has a blanket/sheet to cover it. Also that the man was walking quickly. His trousers were slightly baggy all the way down. Trousers were khaki, chino style. His coat/jacket was the same colour anorak style. Shoes were slightly heeled.

The child was in the man's arms, with her legs in JTs directions, and not wearing shoes. JT believed it was a girl therefore her pyjamas were light coloured (pink). She did not see the colour of her hair. She did not see her move or make a sound. She believed she was asleep.

                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.......from this.....(Jane's statement)

Only it was strange that the child had no cover (blanket) and the way the man walked, rapidly, and how he was dressed, the trousers were slightly wide their entire length, being straight. They (trousers) were as to colour, identical to "corticine" (a type of floor covering), "chino" [Chinese] style. As for the coat it was dark coloured, she was not able to specify what, seeming to be the same material as the trousers, it being a type of "anorak". As for the footwear she relates that she cannot confirm with certainty but [they were] shoes with a light "heel".
Here there is a quandry: the quotes around the word "heel" suggest that she is not describing the footwear. There are at least three English phrases that could fit the written description:
- the man was 'fleet-footed', i.e. fast and light on his feet; - this is my choice.
- the man was 'light in the loafers';
- the man was 'showing a clean pair of heels'.



About the description of the child, she confirmed that it was being carried in his arms, with the legs in her direction and barefoot. She thought that it was a female child because the pyjamas were a light colour (seemingly pink to her). She never saw the hair of the child. She never saw it move nor make any sound, thinking that it was asleep.
                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Both taken from   
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm

Corticine =  floor covering made from ground cork & India rubber.
 https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=corticine&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj28rq-4q_WAhVKuhQKHfD3A5EQ_AUICygC&biw=1242&bih=602#imgrc=_


Jane has the trousers coloured as khaki in her statement. Crecheman is pictured wearing beige trousers. Corticine would appear to be a greyish colour.

What on earth were the PJ working from when issuing their pic of Tannerman??

[misty]

Make that three. In Misty's theory we have Crecheman, Tannerman and Smithman all carrying bare-footed Madeleine lookalikes.

There is no evidence that Crecheman was carrying a barefooted child.

[misty]

Misty you have absolutely no grounds for your belief other than desperately wanting Tannerman still to be the individual who abducted Madeleine.

I actually am really interested now in why SY have said they think Crecheman was Tannerman when there is evidence to suggest he wasn't.

[Robittybob1]

I actually am really interested now in why SY have said they think Crecheman was Tannerman when there is evidence to suggest he wasn't.

Was or wasn't?

[faithlilly]

I actually am really interested now in why SY have said they think Crecheman was Tannerman when there is evidence to suggest he wasn't.

Perhaps they just wanted rid and weren't really concerned about the details. Well it is as evidence-based as your theory isn't it ?

[faithlilly]

Can you tell me how someone got this.....(summary of Jane's statement)
*snipped*
JT was confronted by information that the police technical team could find no indication that Madeleine had passed the junction where she indicated that a man had been carrying a girl in his arms. JT stood by her original statement. At the time she gave little importance to seeing this therefore common sight at Ocean Club. But she did think it was strange that the child has a blanket/sheet to cover it. Also that the man was walking quickly. His trousers were slightly baggy all the way down. Trousers were khaki, chino style. His coat/jacket was the same colour anorak style. Shoes were slightly heeled.

The child was in the man's arms, with her legs in JTs directions, and not wearing shoes. JT believed it was a girl therefore her pyjamas were light coloured (pink). She did not see the colour of her hair. She did not see her move or make a sound. She believed she was asleep.

                   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.......from this.....(Jane's statement)

Only it was strange that the child had no cover (blanket) and the way the man walked, rapidly, and how he was dressed, the trousers were slightly wide their entire length, being straight. They (trousers) were as to colour, identical to "corticine" (a type of floor covering), "chino" [Chinese] style. As for the coat it was dark coloured, she was not able to specify what, seeming to be the same material as the trousers, it being a type of "anorak". As for the footwear she relates that she cannot confirm with certainty but [they were] shoes with a light "heel".
Here there is a quandry: the quotes around the word "heel" suggest that she is not describing the footwear. There are at least three English phrases that could fit the written description:
- the man was 'fleet-footed', i.e. fast and light on his feet; - this is my choice.
- the man was 'light in the loafers';
- the man was 'showing a clean pair of heels'.



About the description of the child, she confirmed that it was being carried in his arms, with the legs in her direction and barefoot. She thought that it was a female child because the pyjamas were a light colour (seemingly pink to her). She never saw the hair of the child. She never saw it move nor make any sound, thinking that it was asleep.
                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Both taken from   
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm

Corticine =  floor covering made from ground cork & India rubber.
 https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=corticine&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj28rq-4q_WAhVKuhQKHfD3A5EQ_AUICygC&biw=1242&bih=602#imgrc=_


Jane has the trousers coloured as khaki in her statement. Crecheman is pictured wearing beige trousers. Corticine would appear to be a greyish colour.

What on earth were the PJ working from when issuing their pic of Tannerman??

Did the PJ issue a pic of Tannerman? I thought the only sketch in circulation was the sketch done for the McCanns by the Little woman.