CMTV Gonçalo Amaral - O Enigma - with English subtitles

[misty]

When the taxpayer has paid over £11 million pounds into an investigation which has eliminated Tannerman as a suspect yet the OFM seem to be actively undermining that investigation by still having Tannerman as a POI that is everyone's business.

The McCanns cannnot demand that the investigation into their child's disappearance be reopened then actively undermine that same investigation's findings when it doesn't suit. SY must certainly be questioning their behaviour.

How are the McCanns undermining the SY investigation when SY have not officially said they are no longer looking for Tannerman, merely that they are "almost certain the man JT saw was an innocent holidaymaker & not the abductor?" (Notice the words "the abductor").

[G-Unit]

Here is evidence of unfinished sentences that are incorrectly typed as whole sentences in this statement:
QUOTE

4078    “So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts”.  (an unfinished sentence - but ending in a full stop)

4078    “You don’t feel it was the same person?”

Reply    “No, I don’t, no”.

End quote.

QUOTE

Reply    “I know, the problem is, it’s just getting the Press and the”. (an unfinished sentence but ending in a full stop)

End  quote

IMO that should have been typed as
''I know, the problem is, it's just getting the Press and the...'' (an unfinished sentence -  therefore ending in several full stops)

QUOTE
 
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”.    (an unfinished sentence but ending in a full stop)

End quote

IMO it is out of context with the existing discussion for JT to be referring to RM at that point in the interview. 

AIMHO

Can you prove those sentences are unfinished? You can't, so you're speculating. Even if they are, so what? People leave sentences unfinished for all sorts of reasons.

I don’t think it was him that I saw”.

4078    “No”.
Reply    “But I just thought it was”.

Jane says she doesn't think it was him that she saw. She's referring to what she thinks at present, during the interview. Then she tells us what she thought in the past; she thought then that it was him.

[faithlilly]

How are the McCanns undermining the SY investigation when SY have not officially said they are no longer looking for Tannerman, merely that they are "almost certain the man JT saw was an innocent holidaymaker & not the abductor?" (Notice the words "the abductor").

So are SY still publicising Tannerman ? If there was any doubt that Crecheman is the man Tanner saw ( let's suspend belief) don't you think he would still be on SY's website along with Smithman. Surely it would be a dereliction of their duty not to have him there ?

[misty]

So are SY still publicising Tannerman ? If there was any doubt that Crecheman is the man Tanner saw ( let's suspend belief) don't you think he would still be on SY's website along with Smithman. Surely it would be a dereliction of their duty not to have him there ?

Do you have a link to the images SY are currently appealing for information about, please?

[jassi]

Do you have a link to the images SY are currently appealing for information about, please?

Are they actively appealing for anything ?

[misty]

Are they actively appealing for anything ?

It doesn't appear so. Should the McCanns be complaining?

[John]

Are they actively appealing for anything ?

Interestingly, the Madeleine reward page has been removed from the Metropolitan Police website.  The original link now directs to the Met Home page.  Seems the Crimestoppers site has also removed all reference to any reward.

Previously

"The Metropolitan Police Service is offering a reward of up to £20,000 for information leading to the identification, arrest and prosecution of the person(s) responsible for the abduction of Madeleine McCann from Praia da Luz Portugal on the 3rd May 2003."

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

[misty]

Interestingly, the Madeleine reward page has been removed from the Metropolitan Police website.  The original link now directs to the Met Home page.  Seems the Crimestoppers site has also removed all reference to any reward.

Previously

"The Metropolitan Police Service is offering a reward of up to £20,000 for information leading to the identification, arrest and prosecution of the person(s) responsible for the abduction of Madeleine McCann from Praia da Luz Portugal on the 3rd May 2003."

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

Thank you for that, John. That must have happened very recently as I don't recall seeing any of the usual sources discussing it.

[Robittybob1]

3 May 2007: the Smith family pass a man carrying a child

15 May 2007: Robert Murat is declared arguido

16 May 2007: the Smith’s recall their sighting of the 3rd

26 May 2007: three of the Smith family return to Portugal; in their statements they affirm they would be unable to recognise the individual they saw … but Martin Smith says it definitely was not Murat.

In my opinion if Murat had not been constituted Arguido we would never have heard of the Smith family sighting on the third ... nor would we have heard of the later addition to Martin Smith's statement after Gerry McCann was constituted arguido identifying him as the man he previously affirmed he was unable to identify.

Based on that Amaral would IMO have been chuffed that he had made Robert Murat an arguido, or else Martin Smith and Co. would not have came forward.

[misty]

Based on that Amaral would IMO have been chuffed that he had made Robert Murat an arguido, or else Martin Smith and Co. would not have came forward.

The Smiths provided him with another potential abductor - a lead which seemed to be steadfastly ignored until such  time the lead implicated Gerry McCann. After Amaral was removed from the investigation it appears the PJ could find no evidence that Smithman was Gerry so there was still another potential abductor in the equation when the case was archived

[John]

3 May 2007: the Smith family pass a man carrying a child

15 May 2007: Robert Murat is declared arguido

16 May 2007: the Smith’s recall their sighting of the 3rd

26 May 2007: three of the Smith family return to Portugal; in their statements they affirm they would be unable to recognise the individual they saw … but Martin Smith says it definitely was not Murat.

In my opinion if Murat had not been constituted Arguido we would never have heard of the Smith family sighting on the third ... nor would we have heard of the later addition to Martin Smith's statement after Gerry McCann was constituted arguido identifying him as the man he previously affirmed he was unable to identify.

I tend to agree, isn't it marvellous what brings some witnesses out of the dark?

[Robittybob1]

The Smiths provided him with another potential abductor - a lead which seemed to be steadfastly ignored until such  time the lead implicated Gerry McCann. After Amaral was removed from the investigation it appears the PJ could find no evidence that Smithman was Gerry so there was still another potential abductor in the equation when the case was archived

There is some talk that Amaral thought that the Smith sighting was a ruse.  I'm not too sure how that worked, but if he thought the whole thing was some sort of false news (using a more modern term) I can see why he wasn't getting his teeth into it.
What makes you certain that the Smith sighting was genuine?  I think it was a genuine sighting but to me it only makes sense if the Smiths didn't care that Madeleine was missing.  They seemed more concerned that Robert Murat wasn't blamed for it.  They seem to be more concerned to have the same story across the family rather than making their own statements. IMO

[Robittybob1]

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.

[misty]

There is some talk that Amaral thought that the Smith sighting was a ruse.  I'm not too sure how that worked, but if he thought the whole thing was some sort of false news (using a more modern term) I can see why he wasn't getting his teeth into it.
What makes you certain that the Smith sighting was genuine?  I think it was a genuine sighting but to me it only makes sense if the Smiths didn't care that Madeleine was missing.  They seemed more concerned that Robert Murat wasn't blamed for it.  They seem to be more concerned to have the same story across the family rather than making their own statements. IMO

As the coordinator of the investigation, Amaral had a duty to ensure that a potentially very important sighting of a possible abductor was investigated.  He chose to do nothing after the MS said the man definitely not Murat
but then elected to do something after the McCanns had walked quickly followed by MS's fresh assertion that he was fairly sure the man he saw on 3rd May was Gerry. Either MS was a reliable witness or he wasn't - that seems to have depended on the line of inquiry being pursued.

[G-Unit]

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.

You refer to Gerry looking uncomfortable and, after watching the video, conclude that Sean didn't look uncomfortable. I thought you were discussing Gerry?