UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Robittybob1 on July 02, 2019, 03:43:05 AM
-
Is it true the PJ may have "Smithman" on video?
Here is my logic:
A man was seen carrying a girl who may have looked like Madeleine.
Martin Smith has stated he is somewhat certain this man looked like Gerry McCann.
The e-fits drawn by the Smiths do look a little like Gerry McCann but not a spitting image IMO.
Combine that with the sighting of "Gerry McCann" at the restaurant on the beach caught on CCTV video.
It was later confirmed the man playing with the girl wasn't Gerry and the girl wasn't Madeleine.
Could this man be Smithman?
I'll have to find the references we were discussing yesterday.
-
Now this is doublely interesting as in the article John posted the word "beach" comes up too!
"COPS PROBE GERMAN KILLER
"He appeared to be trying to close the gate quietly, using both hands, and very slowly and deliberately checking in both directions before walking to the end of the pathway and on to Rua Dr Gentil Martins."
The gate he walked through is understood to be to apartment 5B, next to the McCann’s 5A, where Kate and Gerry's friends Matt and Rachael Oldfield and their young daughter Grace were staying.
The couple and their toddler had been on the beach that afternoon with the holiday group from 3pm to 6pm.
The news comes after it emerged cops probing Maddie's disappearance are investigating Martin Ney, 48, who is serving life for abducting and murdering three kids in 2012."
"The couple and their toddler had been on the beach that afternoon with the holiday group from 3pm to 6pm."
AFAIK that sentence is not describing Kate, Gerry and Madeleine. but is the same couple that was on video I believe.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10801.msg540561#msg540561
"I wonder how this commentator got to know about the footage from the other restaurant, with a girl in it similar to Madeleine. Does anyone know about this?
It comes up fairly soon after this point https://youtu.be/E6LkoAHyPoc?t=1732"
Misty replied "It was an early press report, Rob. The manager (or whoever) seems to have got mixed up with another family."
And again a little later with a link to a press release. "Here's one of the news reports, Rob.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/revealed-gerry-mccanns-last-dance-with-little-madeleine-6620288.html
Did the PJ identify that Dad and child?
I'm now thinking that man could be Smithman.
-
How does the story go?
"A restaurant owner who is one of the last people to have seen Madeleine McCann yesterday told how she danced with her father on the seafront just hours before she vanished.
Miguel Matias, who has never spoken before, said the McCanns seemed a perfectly normal family and there was nothing to hint at the tragedy to come.
Kate and Gerry McCann, the children and their holiday friends spent an hour at restaurant Paraiso on the beach of Praia da Luz, where the youngsters ate their dinner."
From Gerry McCann Blogs
"MIGUEL MATIAS
MIGUEL MATIAS (Manager of the Paraiso Restaurant)
A restaurant manager in Praia da Luz said the family were at the beach at around 5pm, while the couple insist Mr McCann was playing tennis as Mrs McCann gave the children supper at the Ocean Club resort, where they were staying. Miguel Matias, who runs the beachside Paraiso restaurant said he saw Mr McCann dancing with his daughter as the family ate a meal on the terrace in the early evening. Several days later he contacted police and handed over CCTV footage: "We would not have handed the CCTV if we were not sure. They have taken it as evidence."
So the PJ have the evidence according to that article.
-
Continuing on with the Google search for Miguel Matias:
This is a translation of an article supposedly from Correio da Manhã
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2007/12/cameras-were-fully-operationnal.html
"In agreement with statements of the McCann’s friends quoted by the English press, the children stayed in the day-care center during the afternoon, while Gerry had lessons of tennis and Kate stayed in the swimming pool. According to this version, Madeleine took tea in the day-care center at around 17h and her parents went to pick her up just before 18 h. They went to their apartment, from where the parents said to gone out to have dinner with the friends in the Tapas restaurant where they arrived at 20h. “There are registers and witnesses”, said a source, “Kate was never alone with Madeleine during the afternoon”, it underlines another one, both quoted in the English press.
Miguel Matias contradicts this version. The owner of the restaurant Paradise, in the Praia de Luz, guarantees that the McCanns were in that same afternoon in his restaurant. And it guarantees to have proofs. Recordings of CCTV footage that are already in the possession of the PJ. “The date is in the images”, it stated to the CM.
It was a week after the disappearance, when the image of the girl and of the parents was filling the news spaces, that an employee alerted the boss. He remembered the face of a friend of the couple.
Miguel Matias took the footage to house and he saw them. He absolutely guarantees that in the CCTV footage were the McCanns, with three children, together with two couples and another two children. He also stated that he saw an elderly woman. He confirmed that Madeleine did in fact ate in the restaurant."
Comment:
There seems to be a real conflict between what Miguel says and what the McCanns claim. I accept that Miguel is confused but that still doesn't explain who it was seen on the CCTV footage.
-
This could explain why the PJ never really went searching for Smithman - they know who he is already, they had him on CCTV at the Paraiso Restaurant on the afternoon of the 3rd.
Therefore they know that it wasn't Gerry McCann that the Smiths saw. The PJ reasoning given that Gerry had a water tight alibi for 10:00 PM never rang true for me.
But if they know who Smithman was that is a totally different story.
-
Continuing on with the Google search for Miguel Matias:
This is a translation of an article supposedly from Correio da Manhã
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2007/12/cameras-were-fully-operationnal.html
"In agreement with statements of the McCann’s friends quoted by the English press, the children stayed in the day-care center during the afternoon, while Gerry had lessons of tennis and Kate stayed in the swimming pool. According to this version, Madeleine took tea in the day-care center at around 17h and her parents went to pick her up just before 18 h. They went to their apartment, from where the parents said to gone out to have dinner with the friends in the Tapas restaurant where they arrived at 20h. “There are registers and witnesses”, said a source, “Kate was never alone with Madeleine during the afternoon”, it underlines another one, both quoted in the English press.
Miguel Matias contradicts this version. The owner of the restaurant Paradise, in the Praia de Luz, guarantees that the McCanns were in that same afternoon in his restaurant. And it guarantees to have proofs. Recordings of CCTV footage that are already in the possession of the PJ. “The date is in the images”, it stated to the CM.
It was a week after the disappearance, when the image of the girl and of the parents was filling the news spaces, that an employee alerted the boss. He remembered the face of a friend of the couple.
Miguel Matias took the footage to house and he saw them. He absolutely guarantees that in the CCTV footage were the McCanns, with three children, together with two couples and another two children. He also stated that he saw an elderly woman. He confirmed that Madeleine did in fact ate in the restaurant."
Comment:
There seems to be a real conflict between what Miguel says and what the McCanns claim. I accept that Miguel is confused but that still doesn't explain who it was seen on the CCTV footage.
Miguel died some years back.
The Paraíso was then run by a son, on behalf of his mother.
-
This could explain why the PJ never really went searching for Smithman - they know who he is already, they had him on CCTV at the Paraiso Restaurant on the afternoon of the 3rd.
Therefore they know that it wasn't Gerry McCann that the Smiths saw. The PJ reasoning given that Gerry had a water tight alibi for 10:00 PM never rang true for me.
But if they know who Smithman was that is a totally different story.
The bloke said it was Madeleine and her father.
We know it wasn't.
If it was one of the group it was either DP or ROB.
Neither of them fit the Smithman efits.
Therefore Smithman wasn't at the Paraiso on 3rd May.
-
The bloke said it was Madeleine and her father.
We know it wasn't.
If it was one of the group it was either DP or ROB.
Neither of them fit the Smithman efits.
Therefore Smithman wasn't at the Paraiso on 3rd May.
I should first of all say thanks for a reply.
Do you think Miguel says Gerry and his daughter were part of a group?
If they were altogether then you could be right ("If it was one of the group it was either DP or ROB."), but so far when I read what Miguel reported it sounded more like this "father" was on his own with his "daughter". I could be wrong, can you see where I'm going wrong?
"If it was one of the group it was either DP or ROB.
Neither of them fit the Smithman efits. " OK I agree there. So this person that is in the video, did the PJ identify him as "either DP or ROB"?
Therefore you have not proved Smithman wasn't at the Paraiso on 3rd May IMO.
-
Today I'm going to study the archiving report. If the PJ knew who Smithman was there could well be clues in there.
-
Today I'm going to study the archiving report. If the PJ knew who Smithman was there could well be clues in there.
OG supposedly have done that and after being almost certain who Tannerman was they shifted their focus to Smithman,why would they do that if he'd already been identified.
-
OG supposedly have done that and after being almost certain who Tannerman was they shifted their focus to Smithman,why would they do that if he'd already been identified.
Good question Barrier but did the PJ get their identification correct?
The one question I want answered is: How can we be sure, even if the identification was correct, that the girl being carried at 10:00 PM was the same girl that he was playing with in the afternoon?
-
I should first of all say thanks for a reply.
Do you think Miguel says Gerry and his daughter were part of a group?
If they were altogether then you could be right ("If it was one of the group it was either DP or ROB."), but so far when I read what Miguel reported it sounded more like this "father" was on his own with his "daughter". I could be wrong, can you see where I'm going wrong?
"If it was one of the group it was either DP or ROB.
Neither of them fit the Smithman efits. " OK I agree there. So this person that is in the video, did the PJ identify him as "either DP or ROB"?
Therefore you have not proved Smithman wasn't at the Paraiso on 3rd May IMO.
He reports seeing this man and his daughter but was it filmed by the camera?
-
He reports seeing this man and his daughter but was it filmed by the camera?
OK I can accept that, but just means his observation is backed up the CCTV tape. That still doesn't tell us who it was? He thought it was Gerry, so did the PJ think the same or not?
I'm just a bit unsure why you'd think "He reports seeing this man and his daughter but was it filmed by the camera" is a bit unusual.
-
OK I can accept that, but just means his observation is backed up the CCTV tape. That still doesn't tell us who it was? He thought it was Gerry, so did the PJ think the same or not?
I'm just a bit unsure why you'd think "He reports seeing this man and his daughter but was it filmed by the camera" is a bit unusual.
The footage shows no dancing so it didn't happen between 17:31 and 18L36. Many people reported seeing the McCanns and Madeleine but that doesn't mean that's who they saw.
-
Now this is doublely interesting as in the article John posted the word "beach" comes up too!
"COPS PROBE GERMAN KILLER
"He appeared to be trying to close the gate quietly, using both hands, and very slowly and deliberately checking in both directions before walking to the end of the pathway and on to Rua Dr Gentil Martins."
The gate he walked through is understood to be to apartment 5B, next to the McCann’s 5A, where Kate and Gerry's friends Matt and Rachael Oldfield and their young daughter Grace were staying.
The couple and their toddler had been on the beach that afternoon with the holiday group from 3pm to 6pm.
The news comes after it emerged cops probing Maddie's disappearance are investigating Martin Ney, 48, who is serving life for abducting and murdering three kids in 2012."
"The couple and their toddler had been on the beach that afternoon with the holiday group from 3pm to 6pm."
AFAIK that sentence is not describing Kate, Gerry and Madeleine. but is the same couple that was on video I believe.
I've interpreted the highlighted sentence as the Oldfields with daughter Grace.
-
The footage shows no dancing so it didn't happen between 17:31 and 18L36. Many people reported seeing the McCanns and Madeleine but that doesn't mean that's who they saw.
What is the link to the footage please?
-
Is it true the PJ may have "Smithman" on video?
Here is my logic:
A man was seen carrying a girl who may have looked like Madeleine.
Martin Smith has stated he is somewhat certain this man looked like Gerry McCann.
The e-fits drawn by the Smiths do look a little like Gerry McCann but not a spitting image IMO.
Combine that with the sighting of "Gerry McCann" at the restaurant on the beach caught on CCTV video.
It was later confirmed the man playing with the girl wasn't Gerry and the girl wasn't Madeleine.
Could this man be Smithman?
I'll have to find the references we were discussing yesterday.
Just my two penneth as a newbie but I tend to see these sightings of men carrying small children as red herrings. Would an abductor or GM really stroll around carrying MM at circa 10pm? Probably not unless they were mentally ill or suffering some cognitive impairment.
We know OC operated a nighttime creche whereby children slept until they were picked up by parents. Isn't a more likely scenario dads collecting their sleeping child? Or a dad carrying a sleeping child from some other place?
Tannerman has been ruled out by SY who now consider the sighting to have been Dr T?
-
Just my two penneth as a newbie but I tend to see these sightings of men carrying small children as red herrings. Would an abductor or GM really stroll around carrying MM at circa 10pm? Probably not unless they were mentally ill or suffering some cognitive impairment.
We know OC operated a nighttime creche whereby children slept until they were picked up by parents. Isn't a more likely scenario dads collecting their sleeping child? Or a dad carrying a sleeping child from some other place?
Tannerman has been ruled out by SY who now consider the sighting to have been Dr T?
Maybe, but Smithman is still unaccounted for.
I don't think his journey that night could be described as 'a stroll'
-
I've interpreted the highlighted sentence as the Oldfields with daughter Grace.
Have you considered who is saying that sentence? "The couple and their toddler had been on the beach that afternoon with the holiday group from 3pm to 6pm." Its clearly not a leak from the PJ or Operation Grange.
Is that just something dreamt up by a journalist? What validation did the person saying that have?
Just my two penneth as a newbie but I tend to see these sightings of men carrying small children as red herrings. Would an abductor or GM really stroll around carrying MM at circa 10pm? Probably not unless they were mentally ill or suffering some cognitive impairment.
We know OC operated a nighttime creche whereby children slept until they were picked up by parents. Isn't a more likely scenario dads collecting their sleeping child? Or a dad carrying a sleeping child from some other place?
Tannerman has been ruled out by SY who now consider the sighting to have been Dr T?
If it was just "a dad carrying a sleeping child from some other place?" has that dad owned up to the PJ, and they just keep that quiet hoping that the pressure on Gerry adds up to a confession at sometime?
That would only work if Gerry did carry Madeleine off along that path.
Had the Totmans not come forward to the media and took the wrap for the Tannerman sighting we would be none the wiser. OK I have struggled for years with the direction of walk issues, and now I just think Jane was mistaken about the direction she saw the man walking. It is easier to blame Jane that to understand it any other way.
-
Maybe, but Smithman is still unaccounted for.
I don't think his journey that night could be described as 'a stroll'
But you often find in these cases unaccounted witnesses even when the case is high profile. The reasons can be many ranging from lack of awareness to don't wish to be identified albeit they have nothing to do with the case. A well known example is the white Fiat Uno/Princess Diana car crash.
Was Smithman hurrying along then or looking furtive or some other thing that made him stand out?
-
But you often find in these cases unaccounted witnesses even when the case is high profile. The reasons can be many ranging from lack of awareness to don't wish to be identified albeit they have nothing to do with the case. A well known example is the white Fiat Uno/Princess Diana car crash.
Was Smithman hurrying along then or looking furtive or some other thing that made him stand out?
I'm not aware of him being described as furtive, but didn't seem to want to stop or talk to anyone.
So not a 'stroll', IMO
" The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run. He did not look tired, moving in a manner usual when one carries a child. "
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
-
What is the link to the footage please?
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PARAISO.htm
-
Have you considered who is saying that sentence? "The couple and their toddler had been on the beach that afternoon with the holiday group from 3pm to 6pm." Its clearly not a leak from the PJ or Operation Grange.
Is that just something dreamt up by a journalist? What validation did the person saying that have?
If it was just "a dad carrying a sleeping child from some other place?" has that dad owned up to the PJ, and they just keep that quiet hoping that the pressure on Gerry adds up to a confession at sometime?
That would only work if Gerry did carry Madeleine off along that path.
Had the Totmans not come forward to the media and took the wrap for the Tannerman sighting we would be none the wiser. OK I have struggled for years with the direction of walk issues, and now I just think Jane was mistaken about the direction she saw the man walking. It is easier to blame Jane that to understand it any other way.
Well if we have access to wit stats then by definition they're in the public domain? The Oldfields claim to have been at the beach between approx (approx being the operative word) times. The sighting of the man closing the gate was made by Mrs Fenn's niece, Carole Tranmer, again between approx times. My guess is the man CT observed was ROB.
I don't know what you mean by "has that dad owned up to the PJ"? There might be nothing to 'own up to'. The man might simply have been going about his lawful business and oblivious to how his coming forward could potentially eliminate him from inquiries.
As I understand it Dr Trotman did not elimate himself he was eliminated by SY who identified him by cross referencing OC records of children collected from the creche.
-
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PARAISO.htm
There are some big gaps between the frames. I don't know if this was the camera or the footage Miguel was talking about.
-
I'm not aware of him being described as furtive, but didn't seem to want to stop or talk to anyone.
So not a 'stroll', IMO
" The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run. He did not look tired, moving in a manner usual when one carries a child. "
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Thanks. So nothing out the usual then? Would a man carrying a child in a tourist resort, lets assume sleeping, start a conversation with strangers? Guess he might have said 'Good evening' but likewise did the Smiths attempt or initiate some friendly greeting?
You often find in these cases people offer up info with good intent after the event but in reality it amounts to nothing more than red herrings.
-
Well if we have access to wit stats then by definition they're in the public domain? The Oldfields claim to have been at the beach between approx (approx being the operative word) times. The sighting of the man closing the gate was made by Mrs Fenn's niece, Carole Tranmer, again between approx times. My guess is the man CT observed was ROB.
I don't know what you mean by "has that dad owned up to the PJ"? There might be nothing to 'own up to'. The man might simply have been going about his lawful business and oblivious to how his coming forward could potentially eliminate him from inquiries.
As I understand it Dr Trotman did not elimate himself he was eliminated by SY who identified him by cross referencing OC records of children collected from the creche.
By owned up I mean if he was innocent just saying to the PJ it was me and I'm innocent.
Totman was eliminated by SY but he was never named by them. It was Mrs Totman who gave their name to the media IIRC
"He was interviewed by the Guarda Nacional Republicana soon after Maddie, three, vanished in May 2007, but his wife Rachel said: “My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn’t hear anything for years." https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/
-
Have you considered who is saying that sentence? "The couple and their toddler had been on the beach that afternoon with the holiday group from 3pm to 6pm." Its clearly not a leak from the PJ or Operation Grange.
Is that just something dreamt up by a journalist? What validation did the person saying that have?
If it was just "a dad carrying a sleeping child from some other place?" has that dad owned up to the PJ, and they just keep that quiet hoping that the pressure on Gerry adds up to a confession at sometime?
That would only work if Gerry did carry Madeleine off along that path.
Had the Totmans not come forward to the media and took the wrap for the Tannerman sighting we would be none the wiser. OK I have struggled for years with the direction of walk issues, and now I just think Jane was mistaken about the direction she saw the man walking. It is easier to blame Jane that to understand it any other way.
I can understand why Holly may not be up to speed on this Rob, but you should be by now.
In Oct 2013, on Crimewatch, OG stated that Tannerman was no longer of interest, but Smithman was, and published 2 e-fits of him.
Crimewatch was NOT shown in Portugal, but the e-fits were. They were described as OG's chief suspect. The Sun pulled a stunt by putting up posters around Luz showing the e-fits in English and Portuguese, describing this man as a suspect. That's not quite what DCI Andy Redwood said, but chief suspect makes a better story.
Wind forward to July 2014. One person gets hoiked in, made an arguido, hauled down to Faro, seemingly because he allegedly looked like one of the e-fits. Might be more, but I have not yet spoken to him about this. He is one of the 3 alleged burglars, who lived in Luz and made phone calls to each other.
That's what would happen to InnocentDad or GuiltyMan. Made an arguido, hoiked off to Faro, exposed by the media.
Yummy. What an incentive.
I don't see InnocentDad or GuiltyMan stepping into the limelight. Do you?
-
Thanks. So nothing out the usual then? Would a man carrying a child in a tourist resort, lets assume sleeping, start a conversation with strangers? Guess he might have said 'Good evening' but likewise did the Smiths attempt or initiate some friendly greeting?
You often find in these cases people offer up info with good intent after the event but in reality it amounts to nothing more than red herrings.
If you read the Smith statement, you'll find that the Smiths did speak to him but there was no answer
-
I can understand why Holly may not be up to speed on this Rob, but you should be by now.
In Oct 2013, on Crimewatch, OG stated that Tannerman was no longer of interest, but Smithman was, and published 2 e-fits of him.
Crimewatch was NOT shown in Portugal, but the e-fits were. They were described as OG's chief suspect. The Sun pulled a stunt by putting up posters around Luz showing the e-fits in English and Portuguese, describing this man as a suspect. That's not quite what DCI Andy Redwood said, but chief suspect makes a better story.
Wind forward to July 2014. One person gets hoiked in, made an arguido, hauled down to Faro, seemingly because he allegedly looked like one of the e-fits. Might be more, but I have not yet spoken to him about this. He is one of the 3 alleged burglars, who lived in Luz and made phone calls to each other.
That's what would happen to InnocentDad or GuiltyMan. Made an arguido, hoiked off to Faro, exposed by the media.
Yummy. What an incentive.
I don't see InnocentDad or GuiltyMan stepping into the limelight. Do you?
Well that was rather interesting. I wasn't aware anyone was made arguido and happened to fit the description of Smithman. How certain are you of this?
InnocentDad should step up.
-
I can understand why Holly may not be up to speed on this Rob, but you should be by now.
In Oct 2013, on Crimewatch, OG stated that Tannerman was no longer of interest, but Smithman was, and published 2 e-fits of him.
Crimewatch was NOT shown in Portugal, but the e-fits were. They were described as OG's chief suspect. The Sun pulled a stunt by putting up posters around Luz showing the e-fits in English and Portuguese, describing this man as a suspect. That's not quite what DCI Andy Redwood said, but chief suspect makes a better story.
Wind forward to July 2014. One person gets hoiked in, made an arguido, hauled down to Faro, seemingly because he allegedly looked like one of the e-fits. Might be more, but I have not yet spoken to him about this. He is one of the 3 alleged burglars, who lived in Luz and made phone calls to each other.
That's what would happen to InnocentDad or GuiltyMan. Made an arguido, hoiked off to Faro, exposed by the media.
Yummy. What an incentive.
I don't see InnocentDad or GuiltyMan stepping into the limelight. Do you?
DCI Redwood never said Tannerman was no longer a person of interest, he merely said that he wasn't thought to be the (actual) abductor. What are the odds of another man, Smithman, being dressed almost identically to Tannerman & carrying a young barefooted girl in pyjamas within the same hour Madeleine went missing?
-
With Jane Tanner's description of the direction Tannerman walked and Julian Totman's logical direction heading home from the creche, being in opposite directions, I was never going to be up to speed on this matter. No matter how they were dressed? No matter what Redwood says. I can't accept it.
-
Well that was rather interesting. I wasn't aware anyone was made arguido and happened to fit the description of Smithman. How certain are you of this?
InnocentDad should step up.
OK, Panorama 10 year anniversary special.
Gentleman got hoiked on a drawing or an e-fit (Portuguese is different to the English translation).
Yummy. 2 days in Faro.
For what?
-
DCI Redwood never said Tannerman was no longer a person of interest, he merely said that he wasn't thought to be the (actual) abductor. What are the odds of another man, Smithman, being dressed almost identically to Tannerman & carrying a young barefooted girl in pyjamas within the same hour Madeleine went missing?
I know what Redwood did and did not say on Crimewatch.
In Portuguese media, it was shortened to suspect.
-
With Jane Tanner's description of the direction Tannerman walked and Julian Totman's logical direction heading home from the creche, being in opposite directions, I was never going to be up to speed on this matter. No matter how they were dressed? No matter what Redwood says. I can't accept it.
For the umpteenth time,Redwood never mentioned any one by name,the papers picked up on it and ran the Totman tale.
-
For the umpteenth time,Redwood never mentioned any one by name,the papers picked up on it and ran the Totman tale.
BUT THE TOTMANS WOULD KNOW IF IT WAS THEM CAPS LOCK ON SORRY.
-
BUT THE TOTMANS WOULD KNOW IF IT WAS THEM CAPS LOCK ON SORRY.
Its never been stated by OG who they found,that almost certainly ruled them out of the alleged abduction,they will not give a running commentary,Totman is supposed to have spoken to someone in 2007,has he ever claimed he spoke to OG. Further to that Misty up thread says that tannerman and Smithman were of similar appearance,did Totman ever say he was still around at circa 10pm.
-
Its never been stated by OG who they found,that almost certainly ruled them out of the alleged abduction,they will not give a running commentary,Totman is supposed to have spoken to someone in 2007,has he ever claimed he spoke to OG. Further to that Misty up thread says that tannerman and Smithman were of similar appearance,did Totman ever say he was still around at circa 10pm.
There was that direct quote from Rachel Totman only. I've never seen a quote attributable to Julian Totman.
-
There was that direct quote from Rachel Totman only. I've never seen a quote attributable to Julian Totman.
Even she does not say that they have spoken to OG.Of more importance imo, whoever it was saw nothing suspicious which is why Redwood moved onto Smithman.
-
Even she does not say that they have spoken to OG.Of more importance imo, whoever it was saw nothing suspicious which is why Redwood moved onto Smithman.
There is all that judicial secrecy requirements to deal with. I think we need to accept it was them who spoke to the police PJ and to the OG investigators.
-
As I said I would look at the Archiving Report (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm) to see if there was a hint the PJ knew who Smithman was.
Two paragraphs sums it up:
"Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.
This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees."
It clearly doesn't say the identity of the Smithman is known to the PJ. Yet they claim there are no more leads to followup. Catch 22 there, they could have kept hunting the identity of Smithman.
The case should not have been archived.
-
They will have a good idea who he is for this case to be on-going 12 years later! He is the only real credible lead they have left!
-
They will have a good idea who he is for this case to be on-going 12 years later! He is the only real credible lead they have left!
That is the point of this thread to propose the PJ know who he is as they have him on video at the Paraiso Restaurant on Thursday afternoon. At a time when Gerry didn't attend and Madeleine was at creche.
-
The ones running the case can tell you who he is but it won't be a surprise to anybody who has investigated it.
-
The ones running the case can tell you who he is but it won't be a surprise to anybody who has investigated it.
So they do know - thanks for that.
-
So they do know - thanks for that.
Only they know but they don't spend this much on a case unless they have a good idea who it is.
-
Only they know but they don't spend this much on a case unless they have a good idea who it is.
Let's hope you are right.
-
Only they know but they don't spend this much on a case unless they have a good idea who it is.
Thinking about what you say, I doubt if it was Gerry McCann as in the archiving report they say Gerry has an alibi for the time Smithman is seen.
-
For the umpteenth time,Redwood never mentioned any one by name,the papers picked up on it and ran the Totman tale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-4fp4kPi60
-
I'm not aware of him being described as furtive, but didn't seem to want to stop or talk to anyone.
So not a 'stroll', IMO
" The individual's gait was normal, between a fast walk and a run. He did not look tired, moving in a manner usual when one carries a child. "
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
I've read the wit stats now, thanks.
One of the witnesses, can't recall which, said the individual was walking downhill and that this accounted for his pace.
-
If you read the Smith statement, you'll find that the Smiths did speak to him but there was no answer
I read all the wit stats in the link but can't recall any saying they attempted to communicate with the individual.
-
I read all the wit stats in the link but can't recall any saying they attempted to communicate with the individual.
In that case, maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Mrs Smith asked something to the effect of 'is she asleep ?'
-
I can understand why Holly may not be up to speed on this Rob, but you should be by now.
In Oct 2013, on Crimewatch, OG stated that Tannerman was no longer of interest, but Smithman was, and published 2 e-fits of him.
Crimewatch was NOT shown in Portugal, but the e-fits were. They were described as OG's chief suspect. The Sun pulled a stunt by putting up posters around Luz showing the e-fits in English and Portuguese, describing this man as a suspect. That's not quite what DCI Andy Redwood said, but chief suspect makes a better story.
Wind forward to July 2014. One person gets hoiked in, made an arguido, hauled down to Faro, seemingly because he allegedly looked like one of the e-fits. Might be more, but I have not yet spoken to him about this. He is one of the 3 alleged burglars, who lived in Luz and made phone calls to each other.
That's what would happen to InnocentDad or GuiltyMan. Made an arguido, hoiked off to Faro, exposed by the media.
Yummy. What an incentive.
I don't see InnocentDad or GuiltyMan stepping into the limelight. Do you?
I agree.
Also it seems to me the emphasis is very much on looking at those who normally reside in Portugal or England when it could surely be someone who normally resides elsewhere?
Even in the aftermath most people on planet earth (currently 7.6 billion) will not have the case at the forefront of their minds. Even less so today. It's quite possible 'Smithman' was a tourist from some place other than Portugal/England and completely oblivious to the emphasis placed on this sighting which might well be a red herring of the Dr T type.
-
I read all the wit stats in the link but can't recall any saying they attempted to communicate with the individual.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5256.msg186852#msg186852
-
DCI Redwood never said Tannerman was no longer a person of interest, he merely said that he wasn't thought to be the (actual) abductor. What are the odds of another man, Smithman, being dressed almost identically to Tannerman & carrying a young barefooted girl in pyjamas within the same hour Madeleine went missing?
High imo given OC operated the night creche facility. I find the Smith/Tanner descriptions are pretty nondescript too. Also there's a significant time difference isn't there between these two sightings?
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5256.msg186852#msg186852
Thanks. I'm pretty sure no mention of this in wit stats. I'll have another look later.
-
Thanks. I'm pretty sure no mention of this in wit stats. I'll have another look later.
I don't believe Smith's wife ever gave a statement to the police, for some inexplicable reason.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5256.msg186852#msg186852
Thanks, that must be where I saw it 8((()*/
-
In that case, maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Mrs Smith asked something to the effect of 'is she asleep ?'
I'm seeing the Smith sighting as 'after the event' and 'after, after the event'. Initially Mr Smith makes a tel call very early on to describe his sighting. It seems unlikely he did not observe GM thereafter in the papers and on the news. Once the McCanns are made arguidos and depart Portugal he then claims he believes the individual to be GM on the basis of how he was holding SM as he departed the Easy Jet flight from Faro and yet his initial wit stat is fairly nondescript imo.
The wit stats do not mention that any of the party discussed the individual before learning of MM's disappearance eg 'He looked well dodgy' etc, etc. It seems it was a non-event until Mr Smith learned of MM's disappearance.
-
I'm seeing the Smith sighting as 'after the event' and 'after, after the event'. Initially Mr Smith makes a tel call very early on to describe his sighting. It seems unlikely he did not observe GM thereafter in the papers and on the news. Once the McCanns are made arguidos and depart Portugal he then claims he believes the individual to be GM on the basis of how he was holding SM as he departed the Easy Jet flight from Faro and yet his initial wit stat is fairly nondescript imo.
The wit stats do not mention that any of the party discussed the individual before learning of MM's disappearance eg 'He looked well dodgy' etc, etc. It seems it was a non-event until Mr Smith learned of MM's disappearance.
8((()*/
-
I'm seeing the Smith sighting as 'after the event' and 'after, after the event'. Initially Mr Smith makes a tel call very early on to describe his sighting. It seems unlikely he did not observe GM thereafter in the papers and on the news. Once the McCanns are made arguidos and depart Portugal he then claims he believes the individual to be GM on the basis of how he was holding SM as he departed the Easy Jet flight from Faro and yet his initial wit stat is fairly nondescript imo.
The wit stats do not mention that any of the party discussed the individual before learning of MM's disappearance eg 'He looked well dodgy' etc, etc. It seems it was a non-event until Mr Smith learned of MM's disappearance.
Bit like the JT sighting.
-
Bit like the JT sighting.
Apart from JT reported her sighting more or less straight away and Smith waited weeks before reporting his.
-
Bit like the JT sighting.
Yes.
-
Apart from JT reported her sighting more or less straight away and Smith waited weeks before reporting his.
But JT only reported her sighting after she learned of MM's disappearance. She did not think at the time it was MM. Had she have done she would have given chase or run back to the others or taken some immediate action.
-
But JT only reported her sighting after she learned of MM's disappearance. She did not think at the time it was MM. Had she have done she would have given chase or run back to the others or taken some immediate action.
Yes, her conviction that it was Madeleine she saw only came later, as I recall
-
I'm seeing the Smith sighting as 'after the event' and 'after, after the event'. Initially Mr Smith makes a tel call very early on to describe his sighting. It seems unlikely he did not observe GM thereafter in the papers and on the news. Once the McCanns are made arguidos and depart Portugal he then claims he believes the individual to be GM on the basis of how he was holding SM as he departed the Easy Jet flight from Faro and yet his initial wit stat is fairly nondescript imo.
The wit stats do not mention that any of the party discussed the individual before learning of MM's disappearance eg 'He looked well dodgy' etc, etc. It seems it was a non-event until Mr Smith learned of MM's disappearance.
I wouldn't call Martin Smith's actions "early on". AFAIK they were back in Ireland before he made contact with the PJ. Well even if I'm wrong about that it was about 2 weeks later that he contacted the PJ.
He would have seen Gerry in the papers before he made his initial statement.
-
Yes.
How is it like the JT sighting?
-
How is it like the JT sighting?
How is it not?
-
How is it not?
The child was being carried differently.
the children IIRC was different ages and wore different clothing.
One was limp and the other semiconscious IMO.
Jane owned up that night, Smiths took a fortnight.
-
The child was being carried differently.
the children IIRC was different ages and wore different clothing.
One was limp and the other semiconscious IMO.
Jane owned up that night, Smiths took a fortnight.
Sorry I misunderstood. Yes I agree they're two different individuals carrying different children but imo they're both red herrings.
-
Sorry I misunderstood. Yes I agree they're two different individuals carrying different children but imo they're both red herrings.
By red heering you mean 'not involved', as opposed to the conventional use of the term?
-
The child was being carried differently.
the children IIRC was different ages and wore different clothing.
One was limp and the other semiconscious IMO.
Jane owned up that night, Smiths took a fortnight.
Both children were considered potentially to be MM.
Both sightings were deemed insignificant until the sighters became aware of MMs disappearance. JT was faster to be informed of this than the Smiths.
A clothing issue arises only if one accepts the McCanns version of events and the accuracy of the Smith statements.
The bit IYO is precisely that. Neither JT nor any of the Smiths reported a semi-conscious child.
-
By red heering you mean 'not involved', as opposed to the conventional use of the term?
8((()*/
-
Sorry I misunderstood. Yes I agree they're two different individuals carrying different children but imo they're both red herrings.
Why would you say that? If there is anything that can't be mistaken it is the direction something passes through you visual field, You might not focus on it, but for sure you know in what direction it travelled.
IMO Jane saw someone walking left to right. That is not a red herring.
-
Both children were considered potentially to be MM.
Both sightings were deemed insignificant until the sighters became aware of MMs disappearance. JT was faster to be informed of this than the Smiths.
A clothing issue arises only if one accepts the McCanns version of events and the accuracy of the Smith statements.
The bit IYO is precisely that. Neither JT nor any of the Smiths reported a semi-conscious child.
No jane does use the term "limp", as if unconscious.
-
No jane does use the term "limp", as if unconscious.
I don't think 'limp', 'sleeping' and 'unconscious' have different meanings in this context, in laymans language.
Neither JT nor the Smiths considered the sightings suspicious until after they learned of the childs disappearance.
-
I don't think 'limp', 'sleeping' and 'unconscious' have different meanings in this context, in laymans language.
Neither JT nor the Smiths considered the sightings suspicious until after they learned of the childs disappearance.
She is not really a layman as Jane is in a relationship with a doctor, so might have more knowledge about these things than an average layman.
-
Both children were considered potentially to be MM.
Both sightings were deemed insignificant until the sighters became aware of MMs disappearance. JT was faster to be informed of this than the Smiths.
A clothing issue arises only if one accepts the McCanns version of events and the accuracy of the Smith statements.
The bit IYO is precisely that. Neither JT nor any of the Smiths reported a semi-conscious child.
What looks like a black jacket and beige pants are seen in crime scene photos ?>)()<
"Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer."
"Adds further that his son TA*** was questioned in Ireland and said that the individual was dressed in a long-sleeved coat/jacket, black in colour, and that the child was barefoot."
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
-
She is not really a layman as Jane is in a relationship with a doctor, so might have more knowledge about these things than an average layman.
What she might or might not have known compared to the average layman is immaterial. If you think she was using some form of medical terminology, it is incumbent on you to show that 'limp' has a distinct meaning in medicine, that it does not apply to 'asleep' or 'unconscious', and that JT was communicating this nugget of information to the PJ, although it never seems to surface again.
-
What she might or might not have known compared to the average layman is immaterial. If you think she was using some form of medical terminology, it is incumbent on you to show that 'limp' has a distinct meaning in medicine, that it does not apply to 'asleep' or 'unconscious', and that JT was communicating this nugget of information to the PJ, although it never seems to surface again.
All good suggestions and I might attempt it one day, but not today.
-
Why would you say that? If there is anything that can't be mistaken it is the direction something passes through your visual field, You might not focus on it, but for sure you know in what direction it travelled.
IMO Jane saw someone walking left to right. That is not a red herring.
Because I can and its what I believe!
How does the direction travelled make the sighting relevant and not a 'red herring'?
-
Because I can and its what I believe!
How does the direction travelled make the sighting relevant and not a 'red herring'?
There are issues with both the Tannerman sighting and the Smithman sighting.
Assuming this is about Tannerman, he was going the wrong way. Even JT in her rogatory states that someone retrieving a child from the OC night creche was going the wrong way. If Tannerman is Totman, then his apartment was in block 4, also the wrong way.
There have been many attempts to explain this wrong way conundrum.
If Tannerman is not Totman, the sighting remains of interest.
-
There are issues with both the Tannerman sighting and the Smithman sighting.
Assuming this is about Tannerman, he was going the wrong way. Even JT in her rogatory states that someone retrieving a child from the OC night creche was going the wrong way. If Tannerman is Totman, then his apartment was in block 4, also the wrong way.
There have been many attempts to explain this wrong way conundrum.
If Tannerman is not Totman, the sighting remains of interest.
Thanks for explaining. Block 4 is to the left of block 5, from the pool side? I have assumed, perhaps wrongly, that OC night creche was somewhere around the reception area used to enter/exit pool/tapas area? Do we have a location map with all these sites of interest highlighted?
Can it be ruled out that Tannerman was not simply going some other place that made him take a detour before heading home? Eg shop or to meet others in a cafe/bar/restaurant? Or simply walking around to send child to sleep as JW was doing earlier? Maybe even heading to a better location for a phone signal or wanted to take a pic of sleeping child at night in some location? Or even killing time until the key holder turned up.
Would any child abductor walk around with said child so close to soc assuming any abductor is without mental illness and/or cognitive difficulties?
I note also there's a primary school in PDL and no evidence/history of attempted abductions or suspicious looking individuals hanging around?
-
Thanks for explaining. Block 4 is to the left of block 5, from the pool side? I have assumed, perhaps wrongly, that OC night creche was somewhere around the reception area used to enter/exit pool/tapas area? Do we have a location map with all these sites of interest highlighted?
Can it be ruled out that Tannerman was not simply going some other place that made him take a detour before heading home? Eg shop or to meet others in a cafe/bar/restaurant? Or simply walking around to send child to sleep as JW was doing earlier? Maybe even heading to a better location for a phone signal or wanted to take a pic of sleeping child at night in some location? Or even killing time until the key holder turned up.
Would any child abductor walk around with said child so close to soc assuming any abductor is without mental illness and/or cognitive difficulties?
I note also there's a primary school in PDL and no evidence/history of attempted abductions or suspicious looking individuals hanging around?
Lots of good questions so here's lots of answers.
From the Tapas pool, block 4 is on the left, block 5 is in the centre, block 6 is (across the road) to the right.
The OC night creche was above OC 24 hr reception, on Rua Direita, so quite some distance away from the Tapas.
There is a map of the OC on the forum somewhere. It does not cover Smithman, as Smithman was not in the vicinity of the OC.
The nearest shop/restaurant in that direction is perhaps 500m away. It's the Mirage, close to the Millennium, both of which feature in the PJ Files.
JT appears to describe a sleeping child, so if it was Totman, he should have been carrying his daughter the other way, back to base.
The key holder explanation is one of the better suggested explanations, as there was only one key per family. However, while the route taken CAN be used to go to and from the OC creche to block 4, it is not the 'logical' one.
Walk around close to the soc with a child? There's more than one way to disappear from 5A on foot, complete with child. Tannerman was taking an option that would get him to safety and darkness in seconds.
There is a primary school in Luz, near to the Smith sightings. There is also a kindergarden even closer, smack dab on the road that runs outside the front of 5A.
According to one resident curmudgeon, the only strange man near the school is me!
(&^&
-
Lots of good questions so here's lots of answers.
From the Tapas pool, block 4 is on the left, block 5 is in the centre, block 6 is (across the road) to the right.
The OC night creche was above OC 24 hr reception, on Rua Direita, so quite some distance away from the Tapas.
There is a map of the OC on the forum somewhere. It does not cover Smithman, as Smithman was not in the vicinity of the OC.
The nearest shop/restaurant in that direction is perhaps 500m away. It's the Mirage, close to the Millennium, both of which feature in the PJ Files.
JT appears to describe a sleeping child, so if it was Totman, he should have been carrying his daughter the other way, back to base.
The key holder explanation is one of the better suggested explanations, as there was only one key per family. However, while the route taken CAN be used to go to and from the OC creche to block 4, it is not the 'logical' one.
Walk around close to the soc with a child? There's more than one way to disappear from 5A on foot, complete with child. Tannerman was taking an option that would get him to safety and darkness in seconds.
There is a primary school in Luz, near to the Smith sightings. There is also a kindergarden even closer, smack dab on the road that runs outside the front of 5A.
According to one resident curmudgeon, the only strange man near the school is me!
(&^&
Equally good answers 8)-))) 8((()*/
How can we be sure JT was correct about the direction travelled?
What does Dr Totman have to say? Is he able to shed any light on direction travelled?
-
Equally good answers 8)-))) 8((()*/
How can we be sure JT was correct about the direction travelled?
What does Dr Totman have to say? Is he able to shed any light on direction travelled?
If JT was wrong, she should have seen Tannerman as she rounded the corner. If she was corect, then Tannerman was behind her as she rounded the corner. Out of sight.
I'm not sure what Totman says. He was pictured in the press as JT described, going from JT's left to her right, with the child's feet towards JT. Unless one mirror-images the whole lot, then JT got the sighting correct.
Whether it was Totman or not is another issue.
-
Totman says he was the man seen carrying his child that night, to his apartment
If this is correct and OG aren't denying it, then Tanner was wrong, either accidentally or deliberately.
and there was no man walking away from 5A at that time.
-
Totman says he was the man seen carrying his child that night, to his apartment
If this is correct and OG aren't denying it, then Tanner was wrong, either accidentally or deliberately.
and there was no man walking away from 5A at that time.
Where does Dr Totman say that?
-
Where does Dr Totman say that?
https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/07/madeleine-mccann-police-wasted-years-hunting-man-already-spoken-7527943/
-
Because I can and its what I believe!
How does the direction travelled make the sighting relevant and not a 'red herring'?
The Man was going away from apartment block 4 and 5 with a limp child held across his arms. - highly significant observation IMO.
-
The Man was going away from apartment block 4 and 5 with a limp child held across his arms. - highly significant observation IMO.
Who claims a 'limp child'? Is this one of Tanners revisions ?
-
Equally good answers 8)-))) 8((()*/
How can we be sure JT was correct about the direction travelled?
What does Dr Totman have to say? Is he able to shed any light on direction travelled?
Next time you see something go past you are you ever confused about whether it went this way or that way?
The only time when someone says it went in the wrong direction is when they set out to lie.
Did you see which way the thief went?
He went that way (lie)
Said because he was an accomplice.
-
Totman says he was the man seen carrying his child that night, to his apartment
If this is correct and OG aren't denying it, then Tanner was wrong, either accidentally or deliberately.
and there was no man walking away from 5A at that time.
My point is it can be done deliberately but never accidentally. If it was done deliberately does that imply she is an accomplice to those that caused Madeleine to go missing? It becomes pretty crucial to work out what the truth is here.
-
https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/07/madeleine-mccann-police-wasted-years-hunting-man-already-spoken-7527943/
"Wife Rachel told the Sun: ‘My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn’t hear anything for years. ‘We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner. But the national police who investigated didn’t get back to us and we don’t know if our information was ever passed on.’
Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/07/madeleine-mccann-police-wasted-years-hunting-man-already-spoken-7527943/?ito=cbshare
Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/
I still think it was his wife who is trying to clear up the situation. Has she got the story wrong?
-
My point is it can be done deliberately but never accidentally. If it was done deliberately does that imply she is an accomplice to those that caused Madeleine to go missing? It becomes pretty crucial to work out what the truth is here.
I've always thought that Tanner was trying to be 'helpful' to the McCanns, to the extent that she made stuff up.
Just my opinion, you understand. 8(>((
-
I've always thought that Tanner was trying to be 'helpful' to the McCanns, to the extent that she made stuff up.
Just my opinion, you understand. 8(>((
Could be some of that going on.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-4fp4kPi60
As I said no mention of a name by Redwood.
-
https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/07/madeleine-mccann-police-wasted-years-hunting-man-already-spoken-7527943/
I asked you ... "Where does Dr Totman say that?" ... but the cite you have provided although interesting does not provide the answer.
Dr Totman is not quoted in that newspaper report; but what comes over loud and clear is that apparently he as a vital witness was either ignored or his statement to the Portuguese police was lost. Much as inertia caused the CCTV recording at Estela da Luz to be overwritten because no-one bothered to check it out.
___________________________________________________
Snip
He walked a few steps and looked up at a CCTV camera and sighed loudly. The camera belongs to the Estrela da Luz resort hotel. “I believe that the person carrying a child in his arms was captured on film from that very camera,” he said.
“I asked my officers to gather all the CCTV footage in Luz but, by the time they got to this hotel, the film from this camera had been wiped over. It was a mistake and I will always regret it. I do feel Madeleine was let down.” Amaral
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/210032/Madeleine-McCann-Did-the-camera-hold-vital-clue
Snip
Police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann spent years trying to identify a man who had already made himself known to them.
Julian Totman told police in 2007 that it was probably him in a sketch released of a man who was seen carrying a child around the same time Madeleine disappeared.
___________________________________________________
But Mr Totman, a GP, had already told the Guarda Nacional Republicana in May that he could be the man seen by Ms Tanner that night.
Wife Rachel told the Sun: ‘My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn’t hear anything for years.
‘We always thought it was Julian who was seen by Jane Tanner. But the national police who investigated didn’t get back to us and we don’t know if our information was ever passed on.’
Rachel, who lives with Julian in the West Country, said police in the UK and Portugal never got back to them.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/05/07/madeleine-mccann-police-wasted-years-hunting-man-already-spoken-7527943/
___________________________________________________
-
Brietta - do you think this adds up to the Totmans being the ones identified by SY and mentioned by Redwood?
Do you think it was the Totmans who kept those tatty pyjamas all those years?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-24528530
"Police have been revealing their latest findings in the search for her on BBC One's Crimewatch programme."
-
The man identified by SY had a 2 year old daughter. Was the Totman's daughter that age?
"DCI Redwood said it was a "revelation moment" when police discovered that the man seen by McCanns' friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm was almost certainly an innocent British holiday-maker collecting his two-year-old daughter from a nearby creche."
The Weinbergers had a daughter same age as Madeleine in 2007.
"Dr Paul Weinberger
Dr Paul Jerome Weinberger is now aged 46, and was just 37 when he was on holiday with the McCanns in 2007.
He was there that week with his wife Jeni Catriona Weinberger, who is a big noise in the art world, being - amongst other things - the Founder and Director of The Get Mucky Art School.
They had a child aged the same age as Madeleine in 2007." https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15166-the-mccann-totman-weinberger-nexus
-
This looks interesting. Were the Totmans even staying in Block 4G on the 3rd?
"The Totmans, with their two children aged 3 and 2, arrived in Praia da Luz on the 28th April and stayed in Apartment G4M, apparently just for their second week.There is this strange reference at the foot of their booking sheet, which says;
“Please note that activity list will only be showing 2nd week, but guest requires 2 weeks childcare from 28th April”. https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15166-the-mccann-totman-weinberger-nexus
(https://cdn.rocketcalendar.com/preview/2007-04.png)
If that is true the Totmans were not staying in G4M on the 3rd. This might explain why he was going the wrong way!
How true any of this is a guess. The facts need verification. Does anyone know?
-
The Totman's children 3 and 2 was the daughter just 2 years of age?
"After collecting his daughter from a creche at the resort in Praia da Luz in 2007, Julian Totman said he walked near the McCann's apartment holding his then two-year-old child, the Mirror reports ." https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/man-madeleine-mccann-detectives-spent-1541229
-
This looks interesting. Were the Totmans even staying in Block 4G on the 3rd?
"The Totmans, with their two children aged 3 and 2, arrived in Praia da Luz on the 28th April and stayed in Apartment G4M, apparently just for their second week.There is this strange reference at the foot of their booking sheet, which says;
“Please note that activity list will only be showing 2nd week, but guest requires 2 weeks childcare from 28th April”. https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15166-the-mccann-totman-weinberger-nexus
(https://cdn.rocketcalendar.com/preview/2007-04.png)
If that is true the Totmans were not staying in G4M on the 3rd. This might explain why he was going the wrong way!
How true any of this is a guess. The facts need verification. Does anyone know?
Presumably there would be a link to the booking form in the files that could be checked, as I certainly wouldn't care to solely take the word of a somewhat dubious fourm
-
Next time you see something go past you are you ever confused about whether it went this way or that way?
The only time when someone says it went in the wrong direction is when they set out to lie.
Did you see which way the thief went?
He went that way (lie)
Said because he was an accomplice.
It would depend on many different factors:
- How much attention I was paying
- Visibility in terms of light
- Time of day ie I'm inclined to be more alert first thing than say circa 9pm
- Whether or not I had consumed any booze and how much
- Line of sight
JT may have suffered 'confirmation bias' where she makes the observation which at the time was irrelevant to her. She then learns of MM's disappearance and the observation takes on a whole new meaning and in her minds eye this hitherto irrelevant observation becomes MM's abductor walking away from 5A.
-
It would depend on many different factors:
- How much attention I was paying
- Visibility in terms of light
- Time of day ie I'm inclined to be more alert first thing than say circa 9pm
- Whether or not I had consumed any booze and how much
- Line of sight
JT may have suffered 'confirmation bias' where she makes the observation which at the time was irrelevant to her. She then learns of MM's disappearance and the observation takes on a whole new meaning and in her minds eye this hitherto irrelevant observation becomes MM's abductor walking away from 5A.
I would agree with that.
-
Presumably there would be a link to the booking form in the files that could be checked, as I certainly wouldn't care to solely take the word of a somewhat dubious fourm
I'm not going to just take their word for it, but surely someone else has noted that sheet if it exists.
-
This looks interesting. Were the Totmans even staying in Block 4G on the 3rd?
"The Totmans, with their two children aged 3 and 2, arrived in Praia da Luz on the 28th April and stayed in Apartment G4M, apparently just for their second week.There is this strange reference at the foot of their booking sheet, which says;
“Please note that activity list will only be showing 2nd week, but guest requires 2 weeks childcare from 28th April”. https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15166-the-mccann-totman-weinberger-nexus
(https://cdn.rocketcalendar.com/preview/2007-04.png)
If that is true the Totmans were not staying in G4M on the 3rd. This might explain why he was going the wrong way!
How true any of this is a guess. The facts need verification. Does anyone know?
Totman's apartment number was recorded as G4M when they dined in the Tapas Bar on 1st May.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_606.jpg (7pm booking)
-
Totman's apartment number was recorded as G4M when they dined in the Tapas Bar on 1st May.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_606.jpg (7pm booking)
Thanks for finding that, but still does no preclude the business arrangement expressed in the note, "“Please note that activity list will only be showing 2nd week, but guest requires 2 weeks childcare from 28th April”.
Could that arrangement be as if they were staying in G4M but in actual fact sleeping elsewhere.
Did anyone check the booking sheets for that statement: “Please note that activity list will only be showing 2nd week, but guest requires 2 weeks childcare from 28th April”?
-
Thanks for finding that, but still does no preclude the business arrangement expressed in the note, "“Please note that activity list will only be showing 2nd week, but guest requires 2 weeks childcare from 28th April”.
Could that arrangement be as if they were staying in G4M but in actual fact sleeping elsewhere.
Did anyone check the booking sheets for that statement: “Please note that activity list will only be showing 2nd week, but guest requires 2 weeks childcare from 28th April”?
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_336.jpg
Maybe they originally only booked one week of childcare but later amended it?
-
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_336.jpg
Maybe they originally only booked one week of childcare but later amended it?
So why do you say that? Have I understood the kids ages correctly? Who the eldest the daughter or the son. I have a feeling the son was in the group with Madeleine, and the daughter only 2 years age.
-
If JT was wrong, she should have seen Tannerman as she rounded the corner. If she was corect, then Tannerman was behind her as she rounded the corner. Out of sight.
I'm not sure what Totman says. He was pictured in the press as JT described, going from JT's left to her right, with the child's feet towards JT. Unless one mirror-images the whole lot, then JT got the sighting correct.
Whether it was Totman or not is another issue.
As I understand it JT made this observation as she left the OC reception (near Tapas) and turned left to walk up the road that runs alongside block 5? During this short walk she observed 'Tannerman' crossing the road in front of her from left to right when if it was Dr Trotman with child collected from creche the logical direction of travel to his apartment would be right to left?
-
As I understand it JT made this observation as she left the OC reception (near Tapas) and turned left to walk up the road that runs alongside block 5? During this short walk she observed 'Tannerman' crossing the road in front of her from left to right when if it was Dr Trotman with child collected from creche the logical direction of travel to his apartment would be right to left?
This remains a problem with no sensible answers.
-
As I understand it JT made this observation as she left the OC reception (near Tapas) and turned left to walk up the road that runs alongside block 5? During this short walk she observed 'Tannerman' crossing the road in front of her from left to right when if it was Dr Totman with child collected from creche the logical direction of travel to his apartment would be right to left?
But now we have information the Totmans were not residing in Block 4 as everyone was believing. Had he been seeing off his friends and then going to his normal place of residence he may have been leaving Block 4 when seen by Jane. This makes it possible for Jane and Totman to be correct, but it means he was carrying a 2 year old child at the time.
Which also fits in with Jane's observation for one wouldn't carry a heavier child across one's arms IMO.
-
But now we have information the Totmans were not residing in Block 4 as everyone was believing. Had he been seeing off his friends and then going to his normal place of residence he may have been leaving Block 4 when seen by Jane. This makes it possible for Jane and Totman to be correct, but it means he was carrying a 2 year old child at the time.
Which also fits in with Jane's observation for one wouldn't carry a heavier child across one's arms IMO.
Not sure what you mean by seeing off his friends? I thought he was returning from creche and heading back to his apt? Which block was he staying in?
-
This remains a problem with no sensible answers.
But there are some knows?
- JT was leaving OC reception, turned left and was heading up the road towards block 5?
- Dr Totman had collected his child from night creche and was heading towards his apt?
- Dr T was staying in 1 designated apartment for his use along with his family?
- Is Dr T's wit stat available? It may be that he/his wife can shed light on the matter?
-
Not sure what you mean by seeing off his friends? I thought he was returning from creche and heading back to his apt? Which block was he staying in?
His friends were the Weinbergers in Block 4. They may have been out for dinner, and picked up the kids from the creche and may have popped around to the Weinbergers for a while before going home.
I'm looking for some scenario that gets him going in the right direction. Right direction = direction she saw Tannerman walking (from the left to the right as she is approaching the "T" intersection.
-
His friends were the Weinbergers in Block 4. They may have been out for dinner, and picked up the kids from the creche and may have popped around to the Weinbergers for a while before going home.
I'm looking for some scenario that gets him going in the right direction. Right direction = direction she saw Tannerman walking (from the left to the right as she is approaching the "T" intersection.
You are assuming then that JT was correct in her recollections?
Surely Dr T/his wife could put an end to all this speculation?
-
You are assuming then that JT was correct in her recollections?
Surely Dr T/his wife could put an end to all this speculation?
Put it this way, if I was living in England I'd be wanting to speak to the Totmans. They are probably unaware of the speculation.
It is only in the last 2 days that I have seen a solution to the"direction" problem. Prior to that I though Jane might have been lying, but over all I find Jane rather honest so I was struggling with that thought of her lying.
-
Approaching The Totmans in any way would be extremely foolish.
-
Approaching The Totmans in any way would be extremely foolish.
I agree. Irrespective of the reaction, just leave the people alone. Same goes for the Smiths - leave them be.
-
Approaching The Totmans in any way would be extremely foolish.
Why would that be? In NZ I researched a case and I tried to contact everyone name in the 3 books that had been written on the case. It wasn't always appreciated but in the end I became very knowledgeable about the case.
-
Why would that be? In NZ I researched a case and I tried to contact everyone name in the 3 books that had been written on the case. It wasn't always appreciated but in the end I became very knowledgeable about the case.
How many times did you get told to foxtrot oscar?
-
Why would that be? In NZ I researched a case and I tried to contact everyone name in the 3 books that had been written on the case. It wasn't always appreciated but in the end I became very knowledgeable about the case.
One could find oneself in trouble with The Law.
-
How many times did you get told to foxtrot oscar?
I must have talked to 100 people and I might have been told off 3 or 4 times. OK they can be rather nasty but over all the experience was worth it. Not monetarily but the experience was amazing. I will write it up one day.
One could find oneself in trouble with The Law.
Well yeah there were those occasions. I got in trouble with the police because I broke a name suppression. Nothing happened in the end as it was an innocent mistake. But it was the 3rd highest ranking police officer who called in to see me.
And there were people so keen to shut me up they tried to get me fired from my job as a Government vet. Now that was rather tricky to work my way through that.
There was a song about me "I fought the Law and the Law won".
-
I agree. Irrespective of the reaction, just leave the people alone. Same goes for the Smiths - leave them be.
That's an interesting thought
If you were able to approach the Smiths, and obtain further information that they undoubtedly have, would you ignore the chance to progress Madeleine's case?
Just how comfy is your armchair, detective?
-
Why did Clarence Mitchell never want to give Smithman the same weight he gives to Tannerman? Why didn’t Smithman feature in any of the pretend police press conferences?
-
Why did Clarence Mitchell never want to give Smithman the same weight he gives to Tannerman? Why didn’t Smithman feature in any of the pretend police press conferences?
Given the resemblance to Gerry McCann I have always felt that the McCanns and their team have sought to play down the Smith sighting. Strange though given that Smithman has NEVER BEEN FOUND.
-
Given the resemblance to Gerry McCann I have always felt that the McCanns and their team have sought to play down the Smith sighting. Strange though given that Smithman has NEVER BEEN FOUND.
Do you think/ believe must Smithman is Gerry McCann?
If so, how does this fit in with your belief in the woke and wandered theory?
-
Why did Clarence Mitchell never want to give Smithman the same weight he gives to Tannerman? Why didn’t Smithman feature in any of the pretend police press conferences?
Proximity to soc?
-
That's an interesting thought
If you were able to approach the Smiths, and obtain further information that they undoubtedly have, would you ignore the chance to progress Madeleine's case?
Just how comfy is your armchair, detective?
Such as?
-
Given the resemblance to Gerry McCann I have always felt that the McCanns and their team have sought to play down the Smith sighting. Strange though given that Smithman has NEVER BEEN FOUND.
has the smith sighting been promoted in portugal....I dont think it has...that may explain things
-
That's an interesting thought
If you were able to approach the Smiths, and obtain further information that they undoubtedly have, would you ignore the chance to progress Madeleine's case?
Just how comfy is your armchair, detective?
you dont have a clue what further info they have...youre just making things up
-
Given the resemblance to Gerry McCann I have always felt that the McCanns and their team have sought to play down the Smith sighting. Strange though given that Smithman has NEVER BEEN FOUND.
Why do you think it is strange? Afaik the driver of the white Fiat Uno in the Alma tunnel at the time of the Princess Diana crash has never been identified.
Many people lead busy lives and some of those rarely bother listening to the news/reading papers so may well be oblivious as to how coming forward could assist investigations.
-
Such as?
The groupings of the nine that we have that night is particularly scanty. So we don't know key things about what happened.
It would appear that Peter McCann led the way. And from his testimony, it would appear he was with his wife.
If so, that's 2 down, 7 to go.
It is probable that Martin Smith was with his wife Mary, just not established. If correct, that's 4 down and 5 to go.
Now we have Aoife, seemingly bringing up the rear. That's 5 down and 4 children to go. Where were they?
What did Smithman see that night?
While were at it, why did the Smiths go into Kelly's that night?
The Smiths could clarify all this in seconds!
-
The groupings of the nine that we have that night is particularly scanty. So we don't know key things about what happened.
It would appear that Peter McCann led the way. And from his testimony, it would appear he was with his wife.
If so, that's 2 down, 7 to go.
It is probable that Martin Smith was with his wife Mary, just not established. If correct, that's 4 down and 5 to go.
Now we have Aoife, seemingly bringing up the rear. That's 5 down and 4 children to go. Where were they?
What did Smithman see that night?
While were at it, why did the Smiths go into Kelly's that night?
The Smiths could clarify all this in seconds!
sorry...when you said further information I assumed you meant something relevant.
-
sorry...when you said further information I assumed you meant something relevant. (Remark deleted)
Oh dear!
-
Do you think/ believe must Smithman is Gerry McCann?
If so, how does this fit in with your belief in the woke and wandered theory?
I don't given the statements made by those in the tapas bar that night which means that it is just one more terrible coincidence and unfortunate for Gerry. Certainly, Martin Smith's insistence that it was Gerry he encountered on the street that night simply muddies the water even more. The chap the Smith's saw could very well have been carrying Maddie and could very well have resembled GM.
It strikes me as sinister that despite all the publicity surrounding Maddie's disappearance and the Smith's sighting that an innocent local or a tourist have never come forward
-
Given the resemblance to Gerry McCann I have always felt that the McCanns and their team have sought to play down the Smith sighting. Strange though given that Smithman has NEVER BEEN FOUND.
Why would they play it down if they knew it wasn't GM?
And play it down is an under statement.... They ignored it for weeks (maybe months) whilst dishing out all sorts of nonsense on "suspects"? If they really wanted an abductor - why ignore a report of a man carrying a child the same age as MM?
-
has the smith sighting been promoted in portugal....I dont think it has...that may explain things
Good to see you joining in Davel. [Just waking up D.]
-
I don't given the statements made by those in the tapas bar that night which means that it is just one more terrible coincidence and unfortunate for Gerry. Certainly, Martin Smith's insistence that it was Gerry he encountered on the street that night simply muddies the water even more. The chap the Smith's saw could very well have been carrying Maddie and could very well have resembled GM.
It strikes me as sinister that despite all the publicity surrounding Maddie's disappearance and the Smith's sighting that an innocent local or a tourist have never come forward
All the witnesses believe it was Madeleine in a deep sleep so that would explain why he will NEVER come forward!
-
All the witnesses believe it was Madeleine in a deep sleep so that would explain why he will NEVER come forward!
But why didn't Clarence want to find him?
-
But why didn't Clarence want to find him?
Because he was paid to do what he was told to do.
-
But why didn't Clarence want to find him?
More importantly, why didn't the PJ want to find Smithman between 3rd May & 6th September 2007?
-
More importantly, why didn't the PJ want to find Smithman between 3rd May & 6th September 2007?
When did Miguel hand in the CCTV recordings? I know that the Smith's reported their findings about 2 weeks after Madeleine went missing, so the PJ would not be looking for Smithman till then.
But I do believe the PJ were certain Gerry had an alibi for the 10:00 O'clock time frame. So the 10:00 PM time frame did not excite the PJ.
-
I don't given the statements made by those in the tapas bar that night which means that it is just one more terrible coincidence and unfortunate for Gerry. Certainly, Martin Smith's insistence that it was Gerry he encountered on the street that night simply muddies the water even more. The chap the Smith's saw could very well have been carrying Maddie and could very well have resembled GM.
It strikes me as sinister that despite all the publicity surrounding Maddie's disappearance and the Smith's sighting that an innocent local or a tourist have never come forward
Afaiaa the Smith sighting has never been promoted in portugal, the most important country in the investigation
This may be, the very reason he has never been traced
-
I don't given the statements made by those in the tapas bar that night which means that it is just one more terrible coincidence and unfortunate for Gerry. Certainly, Martin Smith's insistence that it was Gerry he encountered on the street that night simply muddies the water even more. The chap the Smith's saw could very well have been carrying Maddie and could very well have resembled GM.
It strikes me as sinister that despite all the publicity surrounding Maddie's disappearance and the Smith's sighting that an innocent local or a tourist have never come forward
Ever thought maybe there isn't one.
-
Ever thought maybe there isn't one.
Are you suggesting the Smiths were lying?
-
Are you suggesting the Smiths were lying?
No he's suggesting there might not be an innocent tourist or a local... It's quite clear
-
No he's suggesting there might not be an innocent tourist or a local... It's quite clear
No it is not clear. You have to ask why there isn't "an innocent tourist or a local"?
One of the reasons could be that the Smiths are lying.
Well what reason does Barrier put forward himself?
-
Or that Smithman was indeed GM, IMO. That would explain why Mitchell ignored a credible sighting of an “abducter”.
Are you of the opinion that Mitchell knows Smithman was Gerry?
-
More importantly, why didn't the PJ want to find Smithman between 3rd May & 6th September 2007?
When did Martin Smith first contact the Police?
-
More importantly, why didn't the PJ want to find Smithman between 3rd May & 6th September 2007?
Why does it matter? Investigations change and new theories explored in unsolved cases.
-
Are you of the opinion that Mitchell knows Smithman was Gerry?
How would I know what Mitchell knows? I'm just throwing the question out there. Why did Mitchell not want Smithman to be found? One explanation, IMO, is because he knew Smithman was GM. There may well be other feasible reasons.
-
No it is not clear. You have to ask why there isn't "an innocent tourist or a local"?
One of the reasons could be that the Smiths are lying.
Well what reason does Barrier put forward himself?
It's quite clear to me that barrier is suggesting smithman is Gerry... And not an innocent tourist or local
-
How would I know what Mitchell knows? I'm just throwing the question out there. Why did Mitchell not want Smithman to be found? One explanation, IMO, is because he knew Smithman was GM. There may well be other feasible reasons.
Wow, you have an extraordinarily low opinion of Mitchell, don’t you?!
-
It's quite clear to me that barrier is suggesting smithman is Gerry... And not an innocent tourist or local
Does he offer the reason himself; not yet but Billy offers this reason "because he [Clarence] knew Smithman was GM" without explain how Clarence could know how he found that out.
-
Does he offer the reason himself; not yet but Billy offers this reason "because he [Clarence] knew Smithman was GM" without explain how Clarence could know how he found that out.
I think it's obvious from his post exactly what he means
-
I think it's obvious from his post exactly what he means
You could well be right. But to be fair I'll wait for Barrier to reply.
-
Wow, you have an extraordinarily low opinion of Mitchell, don’t you?!
My own opinion of Mitchell is not the point. The question is why didn't he want Smithman to be found? How many feasible answers fit that question?
-
Does he offer the reason himself; not yet but Billy offers this reason "because he [Clarence] knew Smithman was GM" without explain how Clarence could know how he found that out.
You misquoted me. I said:
One explanation, IMO, is because he knew Smithman was GM. There may well be other feasible reasons.
That would be a feasible explanation, would it not?
-
When did Martin Smith first contact the Police?
It certainly wasn't during the remainder of his holiday in Luz, which ended on 9/5/07, despite his thoughts on 4th
May.
His memory was prompted by his son around the same time Murat was made an arguido, i.e. 14/5/07 & the family approached the Garda in Eire.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
"— Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.
-
My own opinion of Mitchell is not the point. The question is why didn't he want Smithman to be found? How many feasible answers fit that question?
You will of course have a cite for Clarence wanting Smithman not to be found...?
-
It certainly wasn't during the remainder of his holiday in Luz, which ended on 9/5/07, despite his thoughts on 4th
May.
His memory was prompted by his son around the same time Murat was made an arguido, i.e. 14/5/07 & the family approached the Garda in Eire.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
"— Urged, states that when he passed this individual it would have been around 22H00, and at the time he was completely unaware that a child had disappeared. He only became aware of the disappearance of the child the next morning, through his daughter, L*****, in Ireland who had sent him a message or called him regarding what had happened. At this point he thought that MADELEINE could have been the child he saw with the individual.
So therefore that answers the earlier question about why the Police weren't looking for him in early May!
Why oh why if Mitchell wanted to pursue every feasible lead didn't he want to find Smithman? He wanted to trace Cooperman yet the episode of him on the beach following kids wasn't reported straight away.
-
So therefore that answers the earlier question about why the Police weren't looking for him in early May!
Why oh why if Mitchell wanted to pursue every feasible lead didn't he want to find Smithman? He wanted to trace Cooperman yet the episode of him on the beach following kids wasn't reported straight away.
It doesn't. The PJ didn't release any information about Tannerman either until 25th May 2007, the day before 3 of the Smiths flew to Portugal to make further statements. Smiths described a man wearing clothing very similar to Tannerman, carrying a young girl wearing pyjamas. Do you not think that if the PJ had released the description of Tannerman in the early hours of 4th May, the Smiths could have been prompted into immediate contact with the PJ?
-
You will of course have a cite for Clarence wanting Smithman not to be found...?
He ignores the Smithman sighting for months at his Press Conferences. Yet displays to the public other "suspects" quite happily.
-
It doesn't. The PJ didn't release any information about Tannerman either until 25th May 2007, the day before 3 of the Smiths flew to Portugal to make further statements. Smiths described a man wearing clothing very similar to Tannerman, carrying a young girl wearing pyjamas. Do you not think that if the PJ had released the description of Tannerman in the early hours of 4th May, the Smiths could have been prompted into immediate contact with the PJ?
Your question from was "why didn't the PJ want to find Smithman between 3rd May and 6th September?".
-
He ignores the Smithman sighting for months at his Press Conferences. Yet displays to the public other "suspects" quite happily.
Do you have any idea when the McCanns and Clarence would have been aware of Smithman? I find the dates need to be matched with what is public knowledge.
I'm just a bit exhausted ATM so I can only hope someone will investigate the dates - Thanks.
-
Your question from was "why didn't the PJ want to find Smithman between 3rd May and 6th September?".
OK. I'll rephrase it to make it easier for you. Why didn't the PJ want to find Smithman before making the McCanns official suspects?
-
OK. I'll rephrase it to make it easier for you. Why didn't the PJ want to find Smithman before making the McCanns official suspects?
What makes you think they didn't investigate further?
-
What makes you think they didn't investigate further?
There is nothing in the files to suggest PJ carried out any further enquiries about the Smith sighting from 26th May until October 2nd 2007. If you can supply evidence to the contrary I will be happy to concede the point.
-
There is nothing in the files to suggest PJ carried out any further enquiries about the Smith sighting from 26th May until October 2nd 2007. If you can supply evidence to the contrary I will be happy to concede the point.
Even getting the till receipts was late in the piece wasn't it. I think the PJ knew it couldn't be Gerry at 10:00 as he had an alibi then.
-
Even getting the till receipts was late in the piece wasn't it. I think the PJ knew it couldn't be Gerry at 10:00 as he had an alibi then.
The till receipts & restaurant booking sheet weren't obtained until October 2007. Prior to that, PJ did not seem at all interested in either the Smith family sighting or their timeline for that night, something which flies in the face of good detective work. The sighting reportedly occurred within the same hour as Madeleine's disappearance & the descriptions provided were uncannily similar to Jane's sighting. Why wasn't it important until MS decided the man may well have been Gerry - did the PJ originally give the Smith family the same lack of credibility they gave Jane?
-
The till receipts & restaurant booking sheet weren't obtained until October 2007. Prior to that, PJ did not seem at all interested in either the Smith family sighting or their timeline for that night, something which flies in the face of good detective work. The sighting reportedly occurred within the same hour as Madeleine's disappearance & the descriptions provided were uncannily similar to Jane's sighting. Why wasn't it important until MS decided the man may well have been Gerry - did the PJ originally give the Smith family the same lack of credibility they gave Jane?
Think about the other thread, how GA was trying to discover what happened to the bag. If he is convinced Madeleine was smuggled out in the bag in the wardrobe that had to be after the photos were taken.
So Goncalo can't really be exploring the two together.
-
He ignores the Smithman sighting for months at his Press Conferences. Yet displays to the public other "suspects" quite happily.
That simply will not do as a Cite for Clarence Mitchell not wanting Smithman to be found. So please do not raise this accusation again. Otherwise, I will have to Delete your comment.
-
That simply will not do as a Cite for Clarence Mitchell not wanting Smithman to be found. So please do not raise this accusation again. Otherwise, I will have to Delete your comment.
How about we turn it around? Show me the date of the first time Mitchell presents Smithman as a possible abductor?
-
How about we turn it around? Show me the date of the first time Mitchell presents Smithman as a possible abductor?
Don't play word games with me.
-
Don't play word games with me.
As far as I can remember, the Smithman e-fits were not produced in Kate's book. Allegedly due to the expense of investigating this sighting.
I'll dig it out if this is contentious.
-
OC run a night creche. The resort is self-contained therefore most are unlikely to have bothered with hire cars.
How would we expect children collected from night creche to be transported back to accommodation? The children were too big for prams/buggies and therefore were simply carried. What is that arouses suspicion? Would the same suspicion be aroused if those doing the carrying were female? It seems to me the father is doing the carrying simply because he is physically stronger and the child is likely to remain more comfortable in his arms and asleep than if the mother was doing the carrying. The children being carried might be younger siblings and the mother returned to the accommodation with older siblings.
Imo these sightings have no relevance to MM's disappearance and are simply red herrings.
I don't believe anyone would abduct a child, or want to dispose of a body, and walk around so blatantly unless they were suffering some mental illness and/or learning difficulties. And the way in which MM disappeared would suggest to me the perp suffered neither.
-
As far as I can remember, the Smithman e-fits were not produced in Kate's book. Allegedly due to the expense of investigating this sighting.
I'll dig it out if this is contentious.
This is not contentious beyond Libel. And has no bearing on The Case.
-
OC run a night creche. The resort is self-contained therefore most are unlikely to have bothered with hire cars.
How would we expect children collected from night creche to be transported back to accommodation? The children were too big for prams/buggies and therefore were simply carried. What is that arouses suspicion? Would the same suspicion be aroused if those doing the carrying were female? It seems to me the father is doing the carrying simply because he is physically stronger and the child is likely to remain more comfortable in his arms and asleep than if the mother was doing the carrying. The children being carried might be younger siblings and the mother returned to the accommodation with older siblings.
Imo these sightings have no relevance to MM's disappearance and are simply red herrings.
I don't believe anyone would abduct a child, or want to dispose of a body, and walk around so blatantly unless they were suffering some mental illness and/or learning difficulties. And the way in which MM disappeared would suggest to me the perp suffered neither.
If they didn't have access to a car then how else could they remove her body?
They wouldn't need to be mentally ill. Just in a deperate situation where they had no other choice.
-
This is not contentious beyond Libel. And has no bearing on The Case.
Again, I'll check the following if considered contentious. AFAIK, the Smithman e-fits were never published on the Portuguese pages of the Find Madeleine website.
-
Again, I'll check the following if considered contentious. AFAIK, the Smithman e-fits were never published on the Portuguese pages of the Find Madeleine website.
Afaik they were never published in Portugal by the authorities ..in fact afaik... There has never been an appeal in Portugal to find smith man
-
Again, I'll check the following if considered contentious. AFAIK, the Smithman e-fits were never published on the Portuguese pages of the Find Madeleine website.
Any further comments accusing Clarence Mitchell of covering up something or another will be Deleted.
-
If they didn't have access to a car then how else could they remove her body?
They wouldn't need to be mentally ill. Just in a deperate situation where they had no other choice.
A small child could easily be placed into a holdall.
Assuming Smithman was someone sinister carrying a dead body what did he then do? According to a geologist the ground was hard. Smithman wasn't carrying a spade. What sort of implement would you expect to find hanging around that could be used for a dig? Difficult to throw a body into the Ocean without it washing up some place.
-
Any further comments accusing Clarence Mitchell of covering up something or another will be Deleted.
Presumably unless evidence can be produced thereof?
As in when Mr Mitchell stated clearly that deploying PIs in Portugal during a live PJ investigation was legal, when clearly he knew it wasn't.
I'll dig out the cite, should you wish.
-
As far as I can remember, the Smithman e-fits were not produced in Kate's book. Allegedly due to the expense of investigating this sighting.
I'll dig it out if this is contentious.
The Smithman e-fits are not in KM's book. The index and contents refer to the sighting by an Irish family. No mention of the surname.
-
Presumably unless evidence can be produced thereof?
As in when Mr Mitchell stated clearly that deploying PIs in Portugal during a live PJ investigation was legal, when clearly he knew it wasn't.
I'll dig out the cite, should you wish.
Cite for Clarence saying it was legal... And a cite to show its illegal .. The law has never been quoted in 12 years
-
Cite for Clarence saying it was legal... And a cite to show its illegal .. The law has never been quoted in 12 years
What I found interesting was Patrick Kennedy admitting that what he and Metodo 3 were doing was illegal but carried on all the same. Arrogance personified imo.
-
A small child could easily be placed into a holdall.
Assuming Smithman was someone sinister carrying a dead body what did he then do? According to a geologist the ground was hard. Smithman wasn't carrying a spade. What sort of implement would you expect to find hanging around that could be used for a dig? Difficult to throw a body into the Ocean without it washing up some place.
True, but maybe the weight of the child made it awkward to carry in a holdall.
Easier to carry with both arms against the chest, as Smithman did.
I'm of the opinion that her body was, possibly, disposed of in a bin.
-
Cite for Clarence saying it was legal... And a cite to show its illegal .. The law has never been quoted in 12 years
Have you not watched to 10th anniversary docudramas?
You should. It's vintage Clarrie!
-
Have you not watched to 10th anniversary docudramas?
You should. It's vintage Clarrie!
Yes I have... But that isn't a cite
He's had a very succesful career.
-
True, but maybe the weight of the child made it awkward to carry in a holdall.
Easier to carry with both arms against the chest, as Smithman did.
I'm of the opinion that her body was, possibly, disposed of in a bin.
Its been mentioned before,a big strapping lad like C McKeague disappears into the disposal system why not a child?
-
True, but maybe the weight of the child made it awkward to carry in a holdall.
Easier to carry with both arms against the chest, as Smithman did.
I'm of the opinion that her body was, possibly, disposed of in a bin.
MM's weight and size would be little more than most airline carriers allow as hand luggage.
If GM was Smithman how many bins did he past before the sighting?
-
Its been mentioned before,a big strapping lad like C McKeague disappears into the disposal system why not a child?
Were search and rescue dogs deployed in the vicinity CM went missing in the immediate aftermath?
-
Were search and rescue dogs deployed in the vicinity CM went missing in the immediate aftermath?
I think the initial thoughts were that he was walking home,and it was later after no trace was found that thoughts turned to the waste disposal system.
https://www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk/news/updated-search-dogs-seek-missing-airman-corrie-1-7624223/
-
Afaik they were never published in Portugal by the authorities ..in fact afaik... There has never been an appeal in Portugal to find smith man
Its possible is it not the PJ have a mind who it is and the crimewatch appeal was to try and firm it up on the brit side with an attempt to jog anyone's memory who was out there at the time.all imo of course.
-
I think the initial thoughts were that he was walking home,and it was later after no trace was found that thoughts turned to the waste disposal system.
https://www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk/news/updated-search-dogs-seek-missing-airman-corrie-1-7624223/
I don't know anything about the case other than the headlines but based on the link it seems the dogs were deployed some considerable time after he was last seen. Even for those who believe MM disappeared well before KM raised the alarm the dogs in MM's case were deployed at a time they would be expected to reveal some further info if she had been carted off by foot or her body disposed of locally?
-
MM's weight and size would be little more than most airline carriers allow as hand luggage.
If GM was Smithman how many bins did he past before the sighting?
On the most direct route, none, as far as I can personally remember.
But there must have been bins around there. Too many people living nearby.
-
Afaik they were never published in Portugal by the authorities ..in fact afaik... There has never been an appeal in Portugal to find smith man
The point I was making right from the start was that this is possibly because the PJ knew who he was from studying the video taken at the Paraiso Restaurant that afternoon of the 3rd May.
-
A small child could easily be placed into a holdall.
Assuming Smithman was someone sinister carrying a dead body what did he then do? According to a geologist the ground was hard. Smithman wasn't carrying a spade. What sort of implement would you expect to find hanging around that could be used for a dig? Difficult to throw a body into the Ocean without it washing up some place.
Easier for it to be concealed in one of the municipal bins they have in Luz and taken off to landfill.
-
I don't know anything about the case other than the headlines but based on the link it seems the dogs were deployed some considerable time after he was last seen. Even for those who believe MM disappeared well before KM raised the alarm the dogs in MM's case were deployed at a time they would be expected to reveal some further info if she had been carted off by foot or her body disposed of locally?
If Madeleine was carried away from 5a why would it be expected her scent would be more prevalent then the person carrying her?
-
If they didn't have access to a car then how else could they remove her body?
They wouldn't need to be mentally ill. Just in a deperate situation where they had no other choice.
There were other choices rather than walking bold as brass through the centre of town carrying a corpse at 10pm.
-
There were other choices rather than walking bold as brass through the centre of town carrying a corpse at 10pm.
You mean like dumping in the nearest bin?
-
You mean like dumping in the nearest bin?
Yes, why not? Or how about a bin out of town? Or how about carrying it away in a blue holdall?
-
Yes, why not? Or how about a bin out of town? Or how about carrying it away in a blue holdall?
That would depend on whether Smithman was the 'man'
-
That would depend on whether Smithman was the 'man'
Well you believe he was Gerry so why did the dumb cluck not think to cover the body before setting forth on his attention seeking mission?
-
Well you believe he was Gerry so why did the dumb cluck not think to cover the body before setting forth on his attention seeking mission?
Really? I don't recall ever saying any such thing.
-
There were other choices rather than walking bold as brass through the centre of town carrying a corpse at 10pm.
How would anyone know she was dead, short of taking her pulse?
-
How would anyone no she was dead, short of taking her pulse?
anyone no?
-
anyone no?
My mistake, know. Better now?
-
Really? I don't recall ever saying any such thing.
Well don’t you??
-
Well don’t you??
I think it possible but as Smithman has never been identified, who knows - other than Smithman?
-
I think it possible but as Smithman has never been identified, who knows - other than Smithman?
& his wife.
-
& his wife.
@)(++(*
-
My mistake, know. Better now?
A few things to consider.
You believe Madeleine was murdered before the parents went out, so by 10pm the body could have been quite stiff with rigor mortis. The child would have looked unnatural in the carrier’s arms IMO.
Next. You are carrying a (somewhat stiff looking) little girl through town, past the bars and restaurants, with a strong likelihood that you will be seen. You know that soon the town will be crawling with people out looking for this child and you intend to be hanging round the scene, even going on tv to make an appeal so you know that if you were seen by people in the resort there is a strong chance they will remember seeing you carrying this supposedly abducted child.
Isn’t that a bit bloody stupid?
-
Well you believe he was Gerry so why did the dumb cluck not think to cover the body before setting forth on his attention seeking mission?
If I were to conduct hypothetical, macabre operation, I wouldn't cover the body, I'd try to make her look as much like a sleeping child as possible. The best way would be with a buggy tilted all the way back, then maybe a blanket, but as we know, a buggy wasn't available.
All hypothetically speaking (read this post quickly, as it is likely to be deleted forthwith).
-
A few things to consider.
You believe Madeleine was murdered before the parents went out, so by 10pm the body could have been quite stiff with rigor mortis. The child would have looked unnatural in the carrier’s arms IMO.
Next. You are carrying a (somewhat stiff looking) little girl through town, past the bars and restaurants, with a strong likelihood that you will be seen. You know that soon the town will be crawling with people out looking for this child and you intend to be hanging round the scene, even going on tv to make an appeal so you know that if you were seen by people in the resort there is a strong chance they will remember seeing you carrying this supposedly abducted child.
Isn’t that a bit bloody stupid?
She wasn't moving when the Smiths saw her.
Would you expect passers by to test her flexibility as well as her pulse?
-
She wasn't moving when the Smiths saw her.
Would you expect passers by to test her flexibility as well as her pulse?
Did I suggest that I would? Well done for ignoring the rest of my post.
-
Did I suggest that I would? Well done for ignoring the rest of my post.
My pleasure.
I learned it from you.
-
My pleasure.
I learned it from you.
I answered your post, I’ve been out all day and hadn’t yet worked my way down to that thread. I ALWAYS answer reasonable questions put to me, unlike some people who prefer to ignore difficult questions, or just take the piss out of them to deflect from having to give a straight answer.
-
If I were to conduct hypothetical, macabre operation, I wouldn't cover the body, I'd try to make her look as much like a sleeping child as possible. The best way would be with a buggy tilted all the way back, then maybe a blanket, but as we know, a buggy wasn't available.
All hypothetically speaking (read this post quickly, as it is likely to be deleted forthwith).
You still risk being seen pushing a buggy with a kid in it at around about the same time your wife (who you will appear with on TV 24 hours later) is screaming that this child has been abducted.
-
You still risk being seen pushing a buggy with a kid in it at around about the same time your wife (who you will appear with on TV 24 hours later) is screaming that this child has been abducted.
Whoever said disposing of a body was without risk.
-
You still risk being seen pushing a buggy with a kid in it at around about the same time your wife (who you will appear with on TV 24 hours later) is screaming that this child has been abducted.
In which case the game's up, but maybe worth the risk.
-
A few things to consider.
You believe Madeleine was murdered before the parents went out, so by 10pm the body could have been quite stiff with rigor mortis. The child would have looked unnatural in the carrier’s arms IMO.
Next. You are carrying a (somewhat stiff looking) little girl through town, past the bars and restaurants, with a strong likelihood that you will be seen. You know that soon the town will be crawling with people out looking for this child and you intend to be hanging round the scene, even going on tv to make an appeal so you know that if you were seen by people in the resort there is a strong chance they will remember seeing you carrying this supposedly abducted child.
Isn’t that a bit bloody stupid?
Even more stupid for an abductor?
-
A few things to consider.
You believe Madeleine was murdered before the parents went out, so by 10pm the body could have been quite stiff with rigor mortis. The child would have looked unnatural in the carrier’s arms IMO.
Next. You are carrying a (somewhat stiff looking) little girl through town, past the bars and restaurants, with a strong likelihood that you will be seen. You know that soon the town will be crawling with people out looking for this child and you intend to be hanging round the scene, even going on tv to make an appeal so you know that if you were seen by people in the resort there is a strong chance they will remember seeing you carrying this supposedly abducted child.
Isn’t that a bit bloody stupid?
There are suggested routes Smithman might have taken avoiding the busy areas of town.. Also is it true that GM is on record as saying the streets were usually quiet at 15 minute.. err 30 minute kiddie check time?
-
Even more stupid for an abductor?
Why more stupid? Were they planning on sticking around and appraring on telly the next day?
-
There are suggested routes Smithman might have taken avoiding the busy areas of town.. Also is it true that GM is on record as saying the streets were usually quiet at 15 minute.. err 30 minute kiddie check time?
Did he go do his checks via the main route into town then?
-
Whoever said disposing of a body was without risk.
There’s risk and the. there’s blatant suicidal stupidity.
-
There’s risk and the. there’s blatant suicidal stupidity.
As Madeleine has never been found, that statement would appear to be untrue.
-
Did he go do his checks via the main route into town then?
That’s not the route I’ve seen suggested was taken by Smithman.
-
As Madeleine has never been found, that statement would appear to be untrue.
Did it occur to you that Smithman might not have had anything whatsoever to do with Madeleine’s disappearance?
-
That’s not the route I’ve seen suggested was taken by Smithman.
Did Smithman not take a route that took him into town as opposed to away from town?
-
Did it occur to you that Smithman might not have had anything whatsoever to do with Madeleine’s disappearance?
Indeed it has, but we've been working on the hypothetical that it was Madeleine.
Smithman may be a completely innocent, inadvertently dragged into the McCann web of intrigue
-
Did Smithman not take a route that took him into town as opposed to away from town?
There’s a route that avoids the busiest section. Look at the map and you can plan it yourself.
-
Did it occur to you that Smithman might not have had anything whatsoever to do with Madeleine’s disappearance?
It has to me. I thought maybe the invisible paedo fairies dunnit.
-
It has to me. I thought maybe the invisible paedo fairies dunnit.
Would paedos be fairies ?
-
Indeed it has, but we've been working on the hypothetical that it was Madeleine.
Smithman may be a completely innocent, inadvertently dragged into the McCann web of intrigue
Well Mitchell certainly thought Smithman wasn’t important to the case for months and months.
-
Well you believe he was Gerry so why did the dumb cluck not think to cover the body before setting forth on his attention seeking mission?
That would be attracting attention to himself, making it too obvious IMO.
-
Why more stupid? Were they planning on sticking around and appraring on telly the next day?
Equally stupid then.
-
anyone no?
Know nobody nose.
-
Equally stupid then.
Not in my opinion, risky but less crazy. In any case it’s quite possible Smithman is perfectly innocent and not involved at all.
-
Not in my opinion, risky but less crazy. In any case it’s quite possible Smithman is perfectly innocent and not involved at all.
And what about the PJ know who he was because he was on video.
-
Not in my opinion, risky but less crazy. In any case it’s quite possible Smithman is perfectly innocent and not involved at all.
Then why hasn’t he come forward ?
-
Then why hasn’t he come forward ?
How do we know he hasn't?
-
How do we know he hasn't?
That is the thing about coming forward via "Crimestoppers" the information is then kept confidential. Even if someone comes forward and confidentially admits carrying a child through PdL at that time, can the PJ ever with 100% certainty say he was the same man seen by the Smiths. No they can't. And the PJ are stuck by the confidentiality arrangement of Crimestoppers so they can't tell us he came forward.
-
A small child could easily be placed into a holdall.
Assuming Smithman was someone sinister carrying a dead body what did he then do? According to a geologist the ground was hard. Smithman wasn't carrying a spade. What sort of implement would you expect to find hanging around that could be used for a dig? Difficult to throw a body into the Ocean without it washing up some place.
Perhaps Smithman knew someone with a big freezer?
-
Then why hasn’t he come forward ?
Maybe he got run over and died.
-
Perhaps Smithman knew someone with a big freezer?
Doesn't everyone?
-
That is the thing about coming forward via "Crimestoppers" the information is then kept confidential. Even if someone comes forward and confidentially admits carrying a child through PdL at that time, can the PJ ever with 100% certainty say he was the same man seen by the Smiths. No they can't. And the PJ are stuck by the confidentiality arrangement of Crimestoppers so they can't tell us he came forward.
I'm sure they can come forward and tell us.
I can't see why they would.
-
I'm sure they can come forward and tell us.
I can't see why they would.
Who is they? The PJ or the person coming forward? It depends whether you want anonymity or not AFAIK.
-
Who is they? The PJ or the person coming forward? It depends whether you want anonymity or not AFAIK.
Not at all sure the PJ do anonymity.
But it matters not a jot.
All it would take is "Smithman has been eliminated from our enquiry".
End of.
-
Maybe he got run over and died.
He would have been classed as a tourist committing suicide if that had happened IMO.
-
Not at all sure the PJ do anonymity.
But it matters not a jot.
All it would take is "Smithman has been eliminated from our enquiry".
End of.
Do they even do that? "Smithman has been eliminated from our enquiry" That sounds a bit decisive IMO.
-
Do they even do that? "Smithman has been eliminated from our enquiry" That sounds a bit decisive IMO.
OG has said the Smithman e-fits are no longer of interest.
-
These efits were received by the Operation Grange team in September 2008
as part of a dossier of material handed to the MPS by private
investigators that had been working on the case. The MPS will not comment
on whether identifications have or have not been made however the efits do
not form part of any current appeal.
Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please
contact me on 0207 161 3583 or via email at [email address],
quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely
David Edwards
-
OG has said the Smithman e-fits are no longer of interest.
Have they? I didn't know that. Well doesn't that mean his identity is known? Either that or the whole sighting by the Smiths was in fact a politically motivated wind-up, in that it never happened at all.
But since there is a lot of parallelism between the sighting at Paraiso and the Smiths, I tend to think the former reason is more likely.
-
Have they? I didn't know that. Well doesn't that mean his identity is known? Either that or the whole sighting by the Smiths was in fact a politically motivated wind-up, in that it never happened at all.
But since there is a lot of parallelism between the sighting at Paraiso and the Smiths, I tend to think the former reason is more likely.
FOI request, presumably by Mr Bennett, on CMOMM.
-
FOI request, presumably by Mr Bennett, on CMOMM.
See post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10857.msg544191#msg544191
-
See post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10857.msg544191#msg544191
I've told you the source. Like it or not.
-
I've told you the source. Like it or not.
Maybe the source doesn't worry me. All I was a pointing out was the wording of the reply.
-
OG has said the Smithman e-fits are no longer of interest.
Hardly surprising if they are ruling out certain scenarios from the start!
-
Hardly surprising if they are ruling out certain scenarios from the start!
Unlikely to be the reason IMO. Considering what Redwood said in the Crimewatch program.
-
Hardly surprising if they are ruling out certain scenarios from the start!
Would you like to explain that comment?