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: misty on September 19, 2017, 01:57:37 PM
-
We have been made aware by SY that they almost certainly believe Tannerman was an innocent holidaymaker so their timeline has moved on to the Smithman sighting. As it would appear the Tannerman sighting could possibly have been ruled out in 2007 (maybe even before the McCanns were made arguidos) what steps should the PJ have taken to further the investigation into the Smith family timeline & sighting?
What we do know is that none of the Smiths said they could recognise the man if they saw him again. However, MS said he was definitely not Murat. After the McCanns returned home in September, MS reported that he was 60-80% sure that the man he saw was Gerry McCann, based on the way he was carrying the child. He maintained this stance in Jan 2008 in another statement -Processos, Volume XVI, pg 4134 to 4139.
The PJ could not obtain any efits from the Smiths, neither did they ever issue to the Portuguese public a description of the man seen by the Smiths.
My issue is this:-
If Tannerman had been ruled out prior to September 2007, this potential abductor who could not be recognised by the Smiths was still out there somewhere. If he was an innocent tourist then how did the PJ intend to find him & rule him out?
If Tannerman had been ruled out after Martin Smith provided his 60/80% identification of Gerry (which could be easily challenged using independent witness statements regarding Gerry's whereabouts & the clothing he was wearing) how would Smith's reliability as a witness be viewed were another person to be located as the potential Smithman, either innocent or a potential abductor?
208
-
We have been made aware by SY that they almost certainly believe Tannerman was an innocent holidaymaker so their timeline has moved on to the Smithman sighting. As it would appear the Tannerman sighting could possibly have been ruled out in 2007 (maybe even before the McCanns were made arguidos) what steps should the PJ have taken to further the investigation into the Smith family timeline & sighting?
What we do know is that none of the Smiths said they could recognise the man if they saw him again. However, MS said he was definitely not Murat. After the McCanns returned home in September, MS reported that he was 60-80% sure that the man he saw was Gerry McCann, based on the way he was carrying the child. He maintained this stance in Jan 2008 in another statement -Processos, Volume XVI, pg 4134 to 4139.
The PJ could not obtain any efits from the Smiths, neither did they ever issue to the Portuguese public a description of the man seen by the Smiths.
My issue is this:-
If Tannerman had been ruled out prior to September 2007, this potential abductor who could not be recognised by the Smiths was still out there somewhere. If he was an innocent tourist then how did the PJ intend to find him & rule him out?
If Tannerman had been ruled out after Martin Smith provided his 60/80% identification of Gerry (which could be easily challenged using independent witness statements regarding Gerry's whereabouts & the clothing he was wearing) how would Smith's reliability as a witness be viewed were another person to be located as the potential Smithman, either innocent or the abductor?
I have just O.K.'d this thread.
Now what abductor are you referring to ?
-
I have just O.K.'d this thread.
Now what abductor are you referring to ?
I have amended the last sentence to include the word potential. Is that sufficient?
-
We have been made aware by SY that they almost certainly believe Tannerman was an innocent holidaymaker so their timeline has moved on to the Smithman sighting. As it would appear the Tannerman sighting could possibly have been ruled out in 2007 (maybe even before the McCanns were made arguidos) what steps should the PJ have taken to further the investigation into the Smith family timeline & sighting?
What we do know is that none of the Smiths said they could recognise the man if they saw him again. However, MS said he was definitely not Murat. After the McCanns returned home in September, MS reported that he was 60-80% sure that the man he saw was Gerry McCann, based on the way he was carrying the child. He maintained this stance in Jan 2008 in another statement -Processos, Volume XVI, pg 4134 to 4139.
The PJ could not obtain any efits from the Smiths, neither did they ever issue to the Portuguese public a description of the man seen by the Smiths.
My issue is this:-
If Tannerman had been ruled out prior to September 2007, this potential abductor who could not be recognised by the Smiths was still out there somewhere. If he was an innocent tourist then how did the PJ intend to find him & rule him out?
If Tannerman had been ruled out after Martin Smith provided his 60/80% identification of Gerry (which could be easily challenged using independent witness statements regarding Gerry's whereabouts & the clothing he was wearing) how would Smith's reliability as a witness be viewed were another person to be located as the potential Smithman, either innocent or a potential abductor?
Hypothetically if the initial 2007 investigation had reached the point Scotland Yard did in 2013 by dint of following the evidence; I imagine the next logical step would have been to progress to the next relevant witness statement concerning a child being carried through the streets of Luz at the time in question; for the purpose of finding the evidence to either rule the information out or to progress it further.
-
I have amended the last sentence to include the word potential. Is that sufficient?
Yes Misty, that's fine.
-
Hypothetically if the initial 2007 investigation had reached the point Scotland Yard did in 2013 by dint of following the evidence; I imagine the next logical step would have been to progress to the next relevant witness statement concerning a child being carried through the streets of Luz at the time in question; for the purpose of finding the evidence to either rule the information out or to progress it further.
Would it have been considered beneficial to the PJ line of thinking to let Tannerman remain as the main person of interest, lacking credibility, having been identified by a friend of other POI's?
IMO Smithman was always there to be used as a defence, should Tannerman ever be identified, because the PJ did not actively pursue the sighting as a potential abductor. The flip side of that is, now Tannerman has been effectively eliminated by SY, the unsolved issue of Smithman as the potential abductor is right back on the table, blowing a hole in Amaral's (libellous) hypothesis.
-
There is one key point here.
At the moment, unless anyone can contradict me, there is no physical evidence of a third person in the apartment on the night in question, the hairs and partial fingerprints, not withstanding.
So, let's assume someone was made an arguido and perhaps even arrested, without forensics to back any arrest up. What is to stop a hypothetical person doing a Kate Mccann, and refusing to answer any questions posed ?
-
There is one key point here.
At the moment, unless anyone can contradict me, there is no physical evidence of a third person in the apartment on the night in question, the hairs and partial fingerprints, not withstanding.
So, let's assume someone was made an arguido and perhaps even arrested, without forensics to back any arrest up. What is to stop a hypothetical person doing a Kate Mccann, and refusing to answer any questions posed ?
What the investigation did/does have was/is unexplained sightings of men carrying children in Luz around the time that Madeleine went missing. Had she been lured to the front door or an open window then there would have been no need for a potential abductor to enter the apartment.
IMO the lack of discernible forensics against suspects/potential suspects is probably the reason the current investigators have had to go down the technology route - and that takes a long time & a lot of patience.
-
What the investigation did/does have was/is unexplained sightings of men carrying children in Luz around the time that Madeleine went missing. Had she been lured to the front door or an open window then there would have been no need for a potential abductor to enter the apartment.
IMO the lack of discernible forensics against suspects/potential suspects is probably the reason the current investigators have had to go down the technology route - and that takes a long time & a lot of patience.
We have already been told the forensic analysis is over.
As to a man or men holding a child in their arms and walking around Luz, when cars are easily available, does not correlate with the behaviour of an abductor, who would be trying to hide their presence.
-
We have already been told the forensic analysis is over.
As to a man or men holding a child in their arms and walking around Luz, when cars are easily available, does not correlate with the behaviour of an abductor, who would be trying to hide their presence.
Yes, I know all that. Could we go back to the points in my OP please?
-
Yes, I know all that. Could we go back to the points in my OP please?
I'm afraid Misty that is all hypothetical, and quite frankly I see no possibility of your views going any further.
Surely, also SY would have gone through all this in their one sided investigation.
-
I'm afraid Misty that is all hypothetical, and quite frankly I see no possibility of your views going any further.
Surely, also SY would have gone through all this in their one sided investigation.
It's not all hypothetical. There is no reasonable explanation as to why the PJ team failed to address the Smiths' sighting properly before making the McCanns arguidos.
-
It's not all hypothetical. There is no reasonable explanation as to why the PJ team failed to address the Smiths' sighting properly before making the McCanns arguidos.
Can you remind us when did the Smiths first report the sighting ?
and where did they do that ?
Can you also address the point I made about an 'abductor' and not using a car ?
-
Can you remind us when did the Smiths first report the sighting ?
and where did they do that ?
Can you also address the point I made about an 'abductor' and not using a car ?
The Smiths first reported the sighting between 16-18 May 2007 to the Gardai 9 (within a few days of Murat being made an arguido)
There was an example of open carrying, no vehicle abduction just recently https://www.rd.com/true-stories/inspiring/stopping-a-kidnapper/ & there are others.
If you do not wish to address my points, perhaps you would do me the courtesy of not deflecting the thread or try just ignoring it altogether.
-
It's not all hypothetical. There is no reasonable explanation as to why the PJ team failed to address the Smiths' sighting properly before making the McCanns arguidos.
Could it be because the McCanns were made arguidos for reasons which had nothing at all to do with the Smith sighting?
-
The Smiths first reported the sighting between 16-18 May 2007 to the Gardai 9 (within a few days of Murat being made an arguido)
There was an example of open carrying, no vehicle abduction just recently https://www.rd.com/true-stories/inspiring/stopping-a-kidnapper/ & there are others.
If you do not wish to address my points, perhaps you would do me the courtesy of not deflecting the thread or try just ignoring it altogether.
That you don't like my responses is hardly surprising.
Meanwhile, giving one example, does not make a case. Walking wirh a child is advertising a presence. Now we have been told,again and again, the Mccanns were watched. So why would a porential abductor make their presence in plain sigjt ?
-
Could it be because the McCanns were made arguidos for reasons which had nothing at all to do with the Smith sighting?
If there was a sighting of a potential abductor which was effectively ignored both before, during & after the McCanns had been made arguidos (until such time as MS reported he thought his sighting was Gerry) why did discussions take place with a view to having them charged with concealing a cadaver? There was absolutely no evidence of any crime other than the fact Madeleine remained missing (please don't bring up the dogs!).
-
If there was a sighting of a potential abductor which was effectively ignored both before, during & after the McCanns had been made arguidos (until such time as MS reported he thought his sighting was Gerry) why did discussions take place with a view to having them charged with concealing a cadaver? There was absolutely no evidence of any crime other than the fact Madeleine remained missing (please don't bring up the dogs!).
As far as I can see, there still isn't any evidence.
-
We have been made aware by SY that they almost certainly believe Tannerman was an innocent holidaymaker so their timeline has moved on to the Smithman sighting. As it would appear the Tannerman sighting could possibly have been ruled out in 2007 (maybe even before the McCanns were made arguidos) what steps should the PJ have taken to further the investigation into the Smith family timeline & sighting?
What we do know is that none of the Smiths said they could recognise the man if they saw him again. However, MS said he was definitely not Murat. After the McCanns returned home in September, MS reported that he was 60-80% sure that the man he saw was Gerry McCann, based on the way he was carrying the child. He maintained this stance in Jan 2008 in another statement -Processos, Volume XVI, pg 4134 to 4139.
The PJ could not obtain any efits from the Smiths, neither did they ever issue to the Portuguese public a description of the man seen by the Smiths.
My issue is this:-
If Tannerman had been ruled out prior to September 2007, this potential abductor who could not be recognised by the Smiths was still out there somewhere. If he was an innocent tourist then how did the PJ intend to find him & rule him out?
If Tannerman had been ruled out after Martin Smith provided his 60/80% identification of Gerry (which could be easily challenged using independent witness statements regarding Gerry's whereabouts & the clothing he was wearing) how would Smith's reliability as a witness be viewed were another person to be located as the potential Smithman, either innocent or a potential abductor?
I think we have to say the Smith testimony is rather contradictory, in that originally they say they didn't get a good look at the man but later say it definitely wasn't Murat, then later still 50-60% certain it was Gerry and even later than that they make up two e-fits. That sequence isn't even logical.
I wouldn't mind thinking that the Smiths knew who this person was and they are covering for him. They know it wasn't Murat and were willing to dump Gerry into it, but Amaral wasn't buying that for he felt he had enough evidence that Gerry was at OC at the time of the Smith sighting.
He didn't even consider it was another sighting, I think he treated it as a lie IMO.
The trouble with advancing the timeline is that the Tapas group statements have by now a vested interest to keep the Tanner sighting as the potential abductor. They can't adjust without appearing to lie as well, For how were they going to account for all the doors moving etc. For the light levels changing etc. without the focus coming back on them even more.
Jane's descriptions of the child became more like Madeleine as time goes on I'm lead to believe.
Matt's description of the interior of the room go along with the shutters being up at his check.
I can see how a person does this for they are trying to make their recollection fit the story as they believe at the time, but that story locks in a timeline.
So we end up with a compromise where Jane and Smith both see the same person carrying the same child but the man hung around PdL with a child in his arms for an hour or so between 9:15 and 10:15 PM.
-
I think we have to say the Smith testimony is rather contradictory, in that originally they say they didn't get a good look at the man but later say it definitely wasn't Murat, then later still 50-60% certain it was Gerry and even later than that they make up two e-fits. That sequence isn't even logical.
I wouldn't mind thinking that the Smiths knew who this person was and they are covering for him. They know it wasn't Murat and were willing to dump Gerry into it, but Amaral wasn't buying that for he felt he had enough evidence that Gerry was at OC at the time of the Smith sighting.
He didn't even consider it was another sighting, I think he treated it as a lie IMO.
The trouble with advancing the timeline is that the Tapas group statements have by now a vested interest to keep the Tanner sighting as the potential abductor. They can't adjust without appearing to lie as well, For how were they going to account for all the doors moving etc. For the light levels changing etc. without the focus coming back on them even more.
Jane's descriptions of the child became more like Madeleine as time goes on I'm lead to believe.
Matt's description of the interior of the room go along with the shutters being up at his check.
I can see how a person does this for they are trying to make their recollection fit the story as they believe at the time, but that story locks in a timeline.
So we end up with a compromise where Jane and Smith both see the same person carrying the same child but the man hung around PdL with a child in his arms for an hour or so between 9:15 and 10:15 PM.
Supposition.
-
Supposition.
Tell Amaral all his ideas were supposition too then.
I have just reread my post and it is largely opinion rather than supposition. Which bit was supposition as opposed to opinion?
This bit isn't my view "So we end up with a compromise where Jane and Smith both see the same person carrying the same child but the man hung around PdL with a child in his arms for an hour or so between 9:15 and 10:15 PM."
Maybe this next bit is speculative but it is really an opinion I have developed over the last year of study.
"The trouble with advancing the timeline is that the Tapas group statements have by now a vested interest to keep the Tanner sighting as the potential abductor. They can't adjust without appearing to lie as well, For how were they going to account for all the doors moving etc. For the light levels changing etc. without the focus coming back on them even more."
-
Tell Amaral all his ideas were supposition too then.
I have just reread my post and it is largely opinion rather than supposition. Which bit was supposition as opposed to opinion?
This bit isn't my view "So we end up with a compromise where Jane and Smith both see the same person carrying the same child but the man hung around PdL with a child in his arms for an hour or so between 9:15 and 10:15 PM."
The Supposition is simple.
You said the man seen by the Smiths and Tanned are one and the same.
That is your belief, and no more than that.
-
Tell Amaral all his ideas were supposition too then.
I have just reread my post and it is largely opinion rather than supposition. Which bit was supposition as opposed to opinion?
This bit isn't my view "So we end up with a compromise where Jane and Smith both see the same person carrying the same child but the man hung around PdL with a child in his arms for an hour or so between 9:15 and 10:15 PM."
SY have said that the man Jane saw was an innocent holidaymaker, who presumably did not take his daughter down to the beach in just her pyjamas for a late-night swim. That just leaves Smithman. As has been raised on more than a few occasions - why no appeal by the PJ for information about this man in Portugal since Crimewatch 2013 if he was a person of great interest?
-
Do the Portuguese do public appeals ?
OG haven't done any appeals in the years since Crimewatch.
Maybe both forces recognise that it would be a waste of time.
-
The Supposition is simple.
You said the man seen by the Smiths and Tanned are one and the same.
That is your belief, and no more than that.
Don't think this is my belief at all. "This bit isn't my view "So we end up with a compromise where Jane and Smith both see the same person carrying the same child but the man hung around PdL with a child in his arms for an hour or so between 9:15 and 10:15 PM."
It is what we would have to believe if the alleged abduction occurred at 9:15 and the Smith sighting was relevant.
-
SY have said that the man Jane saw was an innocent holidaymaker, who presumably did not take his daughter down to the beach in just her pyjamas for a late-night swim. That just leaves Smithman. As has been raised on more than a few occasions - why no appeal by the PJ for information about this man in Portugal since Crimewatch 2013 if he was a person of great interest?
If the person Jane saw was an innocent man was there still an intruder in the apartment when Gerry did his visit?
Were the shutters up when Matt did his check to allow more light in there compared to his apartment?
Who was moving the doors to the more open position at Gerry's check and Matt's check?
-
Do the Portuguese do public appeals ?
OG haven't done any appeals in the years since Crimewatch.
Maybe both forces recognise that it would be a waste of time.
They appear to be reluctant to make appeals in Madeleine's case. It was left up to the McCanns & associates to distribute her picture & put up posters.
Another recent case where victims of a crime used the media to try to track an offender, which included his photo, didn't appear to attract any criticism from the PJ regarding breaches of judicial secrecy.
http://algarvedailynews.com/news/12297-love-rat-german-steals-17-000-in-takings-from-arrifana-sunset-festival.
If Crecheman was indeed Tannerman & the PJ had no prior knowledge of his statement, what attempts were the PJ making to identify him? That leads directly back to my original question about what they would have done in 2007 had Crecheman's information been given due diligence at the time.
-
If the person Jane saw was an innocent man was there still an intruder in the apartment when Gerry did his visit?
Were the shutters up when Matt did his check to allow more light in there compared to his apartment?
Who was moving the doors to the more open position at Gerry's check and Matt's check?
One person inside the apartment & a second person outside?
-
....or non at all.
-
One person inside the apartment & a second person outside?
All at around 9:00 PM when it wasn't even dark? Plus the innocent father walking past. Matt had just completed a listening check, then Gerry turns up. When did these other two turn up?
-
They appear to be reluctant to make appeals in Madeleine's case. It was left up to the McCanns & associates to distribute her picture & put up posters.
Another recent case where victims of a crime used the media to try to track an offender, which included his photo, didn't appear to attract any criticism from the PJ regarding breaches of judicial secrecy.
http://algarvedailynews.com/news/12297-love-rat-german-steals-17-000-in-takings-from-arrifana-sunset-festival.
If Crecheman was indeed Tannerman & the PJ had no prior knowledge of his statement, what attempts were the PJ making to identify him? That leads directly back to my original question about what they would have done in 2007 had Crecheman's information been given due diligence at the time.
It only takes 12 seconds to pass by, so you could theoretically have 5 innocent fathers pass by per minute.
"If Crecheman was indeed Tannerman & the PJ had no prior knowledge of his statement, what attempts were the PJ making to identify him? That leads directly back to my original question about what they would have done in 2007 had Crecheman's information been given due diligence at the time." Now that would have been interesting. "Jane were these the pyjamas you saw?" Or Amaral could even have got the innocent father to walk past as he did on the night to see if that was what Jane really saw.
-
Tell Amaral all his ideas were supposition too then.
I have just reread my post and it is largely opinion rather than supposition. Which bit was supposition as opposed to opinion?
This bit isn't my view "So we end up with a compromise where Jane and Smith both see the same person carrying the same child but the man hung around PdL with a child in his arms for an hour or so between 9:15 and 10:15 PM."
Maybe this next bit is speculative but it is really an opinion I have developed over the last year of study.
"The trouble with advancing the timeline is that the Tapas group statements have by now a vested interest to keep the Tanner sighting as the potential abductor. They can't adjust without appearing to lie as well, For how were they going to account for all the doors moving etc. For the light levels changing etc. without the focus coming back on them even more."
I don't see that the timeline for the Tapas group would change. The timeline for Tannerman was independent of that.
-
I don't see that the timeline for the Tapas group would change. The timeline for Tannerman was independent of that.
I agree their timeline should not change. But their recollections may have changed. If Crecheman had been identified the next day (as it was possible if they checked out who had kids at the night creche) Jane would have not needed to think any differently than she did on the night. "It was just another father carrying his child home".
-
SY have said that the man Jane saw was an innocent holidaymaker, who presumably did not take his daughter down to the beach in just her pyjamas for a late-night swim. That just leaves Smithman. As has been raised on more than a few occasions - why no appeal by the PJ for information about this man in Portugal since Crimewatch 2013 if he was a person of great interest?
Perhaps they're not interested in him, or they are but don't think he's Portuguese? I believe the e-fits were on the news in Portugal, although the BBC allegedly declined to sell the Crimewatch programme to Portuguese TV stations.
“The BBC said they are not selling the rights”, Martim Cabral told The Portugal News, “therefore we cannot show it.”
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/crimewatch-aired-in-uk-ireland-netherlands-germany-but-why-not-portugal/29659
-
Instead of Silvia Batista saying that Jane could not have seen a man from where she was standing, she should have informed the GNR and PJ that Ocean Club operate a night creche. The night creche nannies had involved themselves in the search so they could have easily worked out who picked up the kids that very night.
Why did she try to discount Jane's sighting? Does that criticism of Jane make sense if what Jane saw was an innocent father?
How come Silvia did not think of that as a solution to what Jane saw? This is the clue that begins to solve the case.
"At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.
This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man. She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
She was obviously mistaken in her conception of what Jane was saying, but rather than saying it was impossible why didn't she think of people carrying their kids back from night creche?
-
I agree their timeline should not change. But their recollections may have changed. If Crecheman had been identified the next day (as it was possible if they checked out who had kids at the night creche) Jane would have not needed to think any differently than she did on the night. "It was just another father carrying his child home".
Sorry, I see where you are coming from now.
But nothing else would have changed with the exception of years of mental torture for Jane Tanner who thought she had witnessed Madeleine's abduction in progress.
Neither would it have moved the investigation forward to Smithman for the simple reason that the PJ did not know of Smithman's existence.
They would not hear from the Smiths about their sighting until nearly a fortnight after the event and shortly after Murat was made arguido.
Which in my opinion made it mean less in terms of locating Madeleine than it did in eliminating Murat.
-
They appear to be reluctant to make appeals in Madeleine's case. It was left up to the McCanns & associates to distribute her picture & put up posters.
Another recent case where victims of a crime used the media to try to track an offender, which included his photo, didn't appear to attract any criticism from the PJ regarding breaches of judicial secrecy.
http://algarvedailynews.com/news/12297-love-rat-german-steals-17-000-in-takings-from-arrifana-sunset-festival.
If Crecheman was indeed Tannerman & the PJ had no prior knowledge of his statement, what attempts were the PJ making to identify him? That leads directly back to my original question about what they would have done in 2007 had Crecheman's information been given due diligence at the time.
In my opinion you need to provide some evidence that whoever you are criticising had information from Crecheman in 2007; or are you just making assumptions?
-
In my opinion you need to provide some evidence that whoever you are criticising had information from Crecheman in 2007; or are you just making assumptions?
Well where are the files showing the PJ had checked out the 9 families that had used the night creche that night? We would be able to provide the evidence if it was there.
How long was it before the PJ found out about the night creche? Amy Tierney was interviewed along with all the other nannies on the 6th of May http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm and the night crech is definitely mentioned. Was this the first the PJ knew about this service?
Why did Silvia, Manager of Services, not mention it on the 3rd?
-
In my opinion you need to provide some evidence that whoever you are criticising had information from Crecheman in 2007; or are you just making assumptions?
The completed questionnaire was in the system. Whether or not it was read by the team responsible for sending it to Portugal, the translators on whichever side of the divide or the PJ team who dealt with incoming info from the UK, either the questionnaire was not treated with due diligence or someone in the PJ did not follow up an outstanding line of inquiry with one of the few families who used the creche. Given that the PJ had the creche records which should have shown a collection time, who else should be criticised?
-
Perhaps they're not interested in him, or they are but don't think he's Portuguese? I believe the e-fits were on the news in Portugal, although the BBC allegedly declined to sell the Crimewatch programme to Portuguese TV stations.
“The BBC said they are not selling the rights”, Martim Cabral told The Portugal News, “therefore we cannot show it.”
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/crimewatch-aired-in-uk-ireland-netherlands-germany-but-why-not-portugal/29659
There's a relevant comment by Anne Guedes under the latest post on SIL's blog about Smithman being Portuguese.
-
Instead of Silvia Batista saying that Jane could not have seen a man from where she was standing, she should have informed the GNR and PJ that Ocean Club operate a night creche. The night creche nannies had involved themselves in the search so they could have easily worked out who picked up the kids that very night.
Why did she try to discount Jane's sighting? Does that criticism of Jane make sense if what Jane saw was an innocent father?
How come Silvia did not think of that as a solution to what Jane saw? This is the clue that begins to solve the case.
"At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.
This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man. She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
She was obviously mistaken in her conception of what Jane was saying, but rather than saying it was impossible why didn't she think of people carrying their kids back from night creche?
According to Vitor Martins Gerry told him that Jane;
passou junto ao apartamento no corredor da fachada pricipal viu um indivíduo com una criança ao colo a passar no sentido descendente da vía pública
passed the apartment in the corridor of the main facade saw an individual with a child on their lap passing down the public road
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm
-
According to Vitor Martins Gerry told him that Jane;
passou junto ao apartamento no corredor da fachada pricipal viu um indivíduo com una criança ao colo a passar no sentido descendente da vía pública
passed the apartment in the corridor of the main facade saw an individual with a child on their lap passing down the public road
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VITOR_MARTINS.htm
The translation given inthe PJ file is "At about 21.20, their friend Jane passed by the apartment (along the corridor of the main entrance) she saw an individual carrying a child who passed descending the road, however she did not recognise this individual, nor the child, only having noticed that the individual appeared to be aged between 30 or 40, had dark hair and light coloured trousers."
I think the term "(along the corridor of the main entrance)" means Jane was walking along the road which has the Tapas entrance on it. ie the main entrance.
-
The completed questionnaire was in the system. Whether or not it was read by the team responsible for sending it to Portugal, the translators on whichever side of the divide or the PJ team who dealt with incoming info from the UK, either the questionnaire was not treated with due diligence or someone in the PJ did not follow up an outstanding line of inquiry with one of the few families who used the creche. Given that the PJ had the creche records which should have shown a collection time, who else should be criticised?
I don't remember Redwood referring to a questionnaire; apologies if he did. You speak of a 'system', but what system and where was it? You don't know if they were sent to Portugal. Therefore you don't know if anyone failed or who they might be. In my opinion it's all guesswork on your part.
-
I don't remember Redwood referring to a questionnaire; apologies if he did. You speak of a 'system', but what system and where was it? You don't know if they were sent to Portugal. Therefore you don't know if anyone failed or who they might be. In my opinion it's all guesswork on your part.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027
*sniped*
The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.
He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished.
But his ‘alibi’ was only looked at this year.
A source said: “He had been clear then that he had picked her up at around the time of the sighting but for whatever reason he was not eliminated as a suspect. The fact the details of the prime suspect have been known all along doesn’t look good.”
Following Madeleine’s disappearance, Leicestershire police were responsible for collating all UK-based inquiries at the request of the Portuguese authorities.
-
Idle first random thoughts:
We have been made aware by SY that they almost certainly believe Tannerman was an innocent holidaymaker so their timeline has moved on to the Smithman sighting. As it would appear the Tannerman sighting could possibly have been ruled out in 2007 (maybe even before the McCanns were made arguidos) what steps should the PJ have taken to further the investigation into the Smith family timeline & sighting?
How would this have been possible? Is there any evidence to suggest that the PJ had information relating to “Crecheman”. As the Drs McCann were the last to see Madeleine that was sufficient for them to be made arguidos anyway as I understand what the PJ said.
What information did the PJ have? It would seem:
A sighting, by Jane Tanner, of a man carrying a child west to east .The description isn’t much cop as she could only see him in profile and from the rear.
he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".
What we do know is that none of the Smiths said they could recognise the man if they saw him again. However, MS said he was definitely not Murat.
True. The Smiths said on 26th May they would not be able to recognise the man. The sighting was approximately 45 minutes after the Tanner sighting and only about 600m away.
Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing.
After the McCanns returned home in September, MS reported that he was 60-80% sure that the man he saw was Gerry McCann, based on the way he was carrying the child. He maintained this stance in Jan 2008 in another statement -Processos, Volume XVI, pg 4134 to 4139.
The PJ could not obtain any efits from the Smiths, neither did they ever issue to the Portuguese public a description of the man seen by the Smiths.
Pages 4134 through 4139 say a little more than that. The PP does not make appeals to the public.
My issue is this:-
If Tannerman had been ruled out prior to September 2007, this potential abductor who could not be recognised by the Smiths was still out there somewhere. If he was an innocent tourist then how did the PJ intend to find him & rule him out?
How would Tannerman be ruled out except on the basis that the PJ did not find it convincing? How would the PP convey to the Portuguese public what to look for? The descriptions are sketchy at best with no facial characteristics.
“Look for a bloke about 28 to 40 with longish brown hair wearing cut off chinos a brown jacket and loafers”. Most of the transient population (tourists to you) probably fit that bill.
If Tannerman had been ruled out after Martin Smith provided his 60/80% identification of Gerry (which could be easily challenged using independent witness statements regarding Gerry's whereabouts & the clothing he was wearing) how would Smith's reliability as a witness be viewed were another person to be located as the potential Smithman, either innocent or a potential abductor?
Tannerman wasn’t ruled out til 2013 so it belongs in the bucket marked “If a sewing machine had bigger wheels it might be a car”
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027
*sniped*
The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.
He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished.
But his ‘alibi’ was only looked at this year.
A source said: “He had been clear then that he had picked her up at around the time of the sighting but for whatever reason he was not eliminated as a suspect. The fact the details of the prime suspect have been known all along doesn’t look good.”
Following Madeleine’s disappearance, Leicestershire police were responsible for collating all UK-based inquiries at the request of the Portuguese authorities.
Was someone leaking to the Mail? Naughty! It seems not even the Mirror knows what LP did with those questionnaires.
Leicestershire Police yesterday refused to comment on the latest revelations.
A Scotland Yard spokesman said: “We are not giving a running commentary.”
It is not clear if the questionnaires were analysed by the British force or simply forwarded to Portugal.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027
*sniped*
The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.
He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished.
But his ‘alibi’ was only looked at this year.
A source said: “He had been clear then that he had picked her up at around the time of the sighting but for whatever reason he was not eliminated as a suspect. The fact the details of the prime suspect have been known all along doesn’t look good.”
Following Madeleine’s disappearance, Leicestershire police were responsible for collating all UK-based inquiries at the request of the Portuguese authorities.
The Mirror as a reliable source?
You're 'avin' a larf intcha ?
-
Idle first random thoughts:
We have been made aware by SY that they almost certainly believe Tannerman was an innocent holidaymaker so their timeline has moved on to the Smithman sighting. As it would appear the Tannerman sighting could possibly have been ruled out in 2007 (maybe even before the McCanns were made arguidos) what steps should the PJ have taken to further the investigation into the Smith family timeline & sighting?
How would this have been possible? Is there any evidence to suggest that the PJ had information relating to “Crecheman”. As the Drs McCann were the last to see Madeleine that was sufficient for them to be made arguidos anyway as I understand what the PJ said.
What information did the PJ have? It would seem:
A sighting, by Jane Tanner, of a man carrying a child west to east .The description isn’t much cop as she could only see him in profile and from the rear.
he gave her the impression that he was not a tourist, because he was very "warmly dressed".
What we do know is that none of the Smiths said they could recognise the man if they saw him again. However, MS said he was definitely not Murat.
True. The Smiths said on 26th May they would not be able to recognise the man. The sighting was approximately 45 minutes after the Tanner sighting and only about 600m away.
Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing.
After the McCanns returned home in September, MS reported that he was 60-80% sure that the man he saw was Gerry McCann, based on the way he was carrying the child. He maintained this stance in Jan 2008 in another statement -Processos, Volume XVI, pg 4134 to 4139.
The PJ could not obtain any efits from the Smiths, neither did they ever issue to the Portuguese public a description of the man seen by the Smiths.
Pages 4134 through 4139 say a little more than that. The PP does not make appeals to the public.
My issue is this:-
If Tannerman had been ruled out prior to September 2007, this potential abductor who could not be recognised by the Smiths was still out there somewhere. If he was an innocent tourist then how did the PJ intend to find him & rule him out?
How would Tannerman be ruled out except on the basis that the PJ did not find it convincing? How would the PP convey to the Portuguese public what to look for? The descriptions are sketchy at best with no facial characteristics.
“Look for a bloke about 28 to 40 with longish brown hair wearing cut off chinos a brown jacket and loafers”. Most of the transient population (tourists to you) probably fit that bill.
If Tannerman had been ruled out after Martin Smith provided his 60/80% identification of Gerry (which could be easily challenged using independent witness statements regarding Gerry's whereabouts & the clothing he was wearing) how would Smith's reliability as a witness be viewed were another person to be located as the potential Smithman, either innocent or a potential abductor?
Tannerman wasn’t ruled out til 2013 so it belongs in the bucket marked “If a sewing machine had bigger wheels it might be a car”
1. The PJ (under duress) DID release a description of Tannerman, so why not Smithman?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id30.htm
Part 4: The PJ make the first public appeal, 25 May 2007
Detectives issued a description of a man seen on the night the four-year-old went missing in the resort of Praia Da Luz in the Algarve. Officers said the man was "carrying a child or an object that could have been taken as a child".
The man is said to be white, aged 35-40, 5ft 10in tall, medium build with hair that was short on top. He was wearing a dark jacket, beige or golden long trousers and dark shoes. At a news conference, Ch Insp Olegario de Sousa urged the man or anyone who had seen him to come forward.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. PP does make appeals - see above
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. They could & they did, however sketchy at the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Whenever Tannerman was ruled out (fresh evidence) how would the PJ have attempted to identify Smithman given that one of the witnesses had said he may have been GM? In the circumstances, who was responsible for trying to progress a criminal investigation, especially in light of the recent SC ruling? Could it not be said that the Portuguese authorities made precious little attempt to validate the abduction theory & were happy for it to remain on record that the McCanns had failed to demonstrate their innocence in 2008?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The Mirror as a reliable source?
You're 'avin' a larf intcha ?
Where else do you expect me to get a cite from regarding information not released from the PJ files?
-
Where else do you expect me to get a cite from regarding information not released from the PJ files?
The Mirror seems to have found one fact; Leicestershire police issued questionnaires which people filled in and returned. The rest of the story is speculation.
You have no evidence that the questionnaires were sent to the PJ and then withheld.
There is information about what was officially withheld by the Portuguese and at the request of the British. No questionnaires mentioned.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
-
The Mirror seems to have found one fact; Leicestershire police issued questionnaires which people filled in and returned. The rest of the story is speculation.
You have no evidence that the questionnaires were sent to the PJ and then withheld.
There is information about what was officially withheld by the Portuguese and at the request of the British. No questionnaires mentioned.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
So the fact that there is no mention in the files of the questionnaires or the people who supposedly completed th them means the PJ didn't see them - is that what you're saying?
-
The Mirror as a reliable source?
You're 'avin' a larf intcha ?
The Mirror being the former home of Tony 'Sardine Muncher' Parsons.
Has that paper ever criticized the Mccann's ?
-
So the fact that there is no mention in the files of the questionnaires or the people who supposedly completed th them means the PJ didn't see them - is that what you're saying?
If the Portuguese authorities had received these documents, why would they be excluded from the released files ?
Even if some were held back for some reason, should the remainder not be there ?
-
If the Portuguese authorities had received these documents, why would they be excluded from the released files ?
Even if some were held back for some reason, should the remainder not be there ?
Would you provide a link to any original first-time statements taken by UK police other than Jez Wilkins & the 2 attributed to the Gaspars, please?
-
So the fact that there is no mention in the files of the questionnaires or the people who supposedly completed th them means the PJ didn't see them - is that what you're saying?
Was it really such an insurmountable task for someone coordinating the incoming information to notice a gap and to take steps to fill it?
X number of children in night creche
X number of parent interviews to be conducted or
X number of questionnaires distributed to parents and
X number of questionnaires returned from parents
These were people who had been out and about in the streets of Luz ... relevant times? ... relevant places? ... maybe relevant information.
Then not all contingencies were covered were they?
The Moyes who lived in an apartment above the McCanns and who were out and about in relevant times and relevant places ... were also ignored by the initial investigators. Examples of real shoddy work, I would opine.
-
Was it really such an insurmountable task for someone coordinating the incoming information to notice a gap and to take steps to fill it?
X number of children in night creche
X number of parent interviews to be conducted or
X number of questionnaires distributed to parents and
X number of questionnaires returned from parents
These were people who had been out and about in the streets of Luz ... relevant times? ... relevant places? ... maybe relevant information.
Then not all contingencies were covered were they?
The Moyes who lived in an apartment above the McCanns and who were out and about in relevant times and relevant places ... were also ignored by the initial investigators. Examples of real shoddy work, I would opine.
Maybe it was considered unnecessary because the direction of the case had already been determined.
-
Would you provide a link to any original first-time statements taken by UK police other than Jez Wilkins & the 2 attributed to the Gaspars, please?
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf
Towards bottom of page 8 -
"The force also developed and used a questionnaire for all UK citizens who were resident in the holiday resort around the time Madeleine went missing. Questionnaires were completed in relation to 599 individuals."
-
http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf
Towards bottom of page 8 -
"The force also developed and used a questionnaire for all UK citizens who were resident in the holiday resort around the time Madeleine went missing. Questionnaires were completed in relation to 599 individuals."
So proof the questionnaires were used for all UK holidaymakers. Thank you, Any trace of even 1 out of 599 completed questionnaires in the released PJ files?
-
So proof the questionnaires were used for all UK holidaymakers. Thank you, Any trace of even 1 out of 599 completed questionnaire in the released PJ files?
Not that I'm aware.
There is no mention about whether or not they were sent them to Portugal.
-
So the fact that there is no mention in the files of the questionnaires or the people who supposedly completed th them means the PJ didn't see them - is that what you're saying?
That is what the evidence says, not me.
-
Its possible that LP scrutinised them on behalf of the pj (saving all that translation), found nothing that they considered to be relevant and just filed them.
As LP are not releasing any documents pertaining to the case, we may never know the truth.
-
Not that I'm aware.
There is no mention about whether or not they were sent them to Portugal.
Even if they did it may only have been to their own Major Incidenet Room in Portugal.
There is plenty of scope for "hello right hand this is left hand" in there ?{)(**
-
Its possible that LP scrutinised them on behalf of the pj (saving all that translation), found nothing that they considered to be relevant and just filed them.
As LP are not releasing any documents pertaining to the case, we may never know the truth.
Do you think the German, Dutch & Irish police also withheld from the PJ any statements they obtained from their citizens holidaying in Luz that week?
-
Do you think the German, Dutch & Irish police also withheld from the PJ any statements they obtained from their citizens holidaying in Luz that week?
Do we have any information about how these countries dealt with the issue?
From the link I posted, it would seem that LP did a lot of the liaison through Interpol
LP were busy shoving everything onto HOLMES, to which the PJ were granted access.
It could be it went no further than HOLMES and when LP packed up & went home, PJ lost access to HOLMES and all its data
-
Do we have any information about how these countries dealt with the issue?
From the link I posted, it would seem that LP did a lot of the liaison through Interpol
LP were busy shoving everything onto HOLMES, to which the PJ were granted access.
It could be it went no further than HOLMES and when LP packed up & went home, PJ lost access to HOLMES and all its data
I think you're right. The volume of information coming into the investigation was unheard of. LP tried to use Interpol to share information with Portugal but there was too much of it. LP used HOLMES, set up a link to their MIR in Portugal but the PJ didn't use it much. (I wonder which language the information was in?)
-
Does HOLMES work in any language other than English ?
Quite sure that the input staff back in Leicester wouldn't speak or understand Portuguese so would input in English.
-
Does HOLMES work in any language other than English ?
Quite sure that the input staff back in Leicester wouldn't speak or understand Portuguese so would input in English.
Good question. As it was developed under a PFI by UNISYS fro the Home Office it would seem unlikely.
HOLMES 2 (Home Office Large Major Enquiry System) is an information technology system that is predominantly used by UK police forces for the investigation of major incidents such as serial murders and high value frauds.
The system is a single application which was developed by Unisys for the Police Information Technology Organisation under the Private Finance Initiative. It provides total compatibility and consistency between all the Police forces of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, as well as the Royal Military Police. The name of the system is a reference to the fictional private detective Sherlock Holmes.
-
Am I right in thinking the 3 of you are of the opinion that the PJ could not possibly have had access to the original statements made by UK citizens after the UK police left Portugal in September because they were stored on HOLMES?
Would someone care to explain how questions relating to original statements taken by UK police could be formulated when the PJ requested rogatory interviews in 2008?
For example:
From the Letter of Request:
* Interview to RAJINDER RAJ BALU as a witness, 62, BIXXXXXXXX ROXX, HeXXXXXXX, Brentwood, Essex. He should be asked the following questions :
* Do you confirm your previous statements to the British Police ?
* What did you do on 3rd May, 2007, between 6.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. ?
* How did you get to know that a child was missing ?
* Did you take part in the searches ? Where and with whom did you look for the missing girl ?
* Do you know a man identified as NEIL BERRY ? Who is he ? How did you know him ? Did you travel together to Portugal ? Did he travel to Portugal with his family ?
* State clearly who went to buy the food at the TAPAS RESTAURANT, what food was it and the way taken.
* Any further questions deemed useful, necessary or pertinent in view of the previous replies.
* Is there any supplementary explanation that you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth ?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CR2/cr2_113.jpg
-
How does any data get put into HOLMES ? Witness statements aren't uniform in their content.
In fact a standard questionnaire might be easier to cope with.
-
According to this job specification documents are scanned into HOLMES and then the text is converted to make it searchable.
http://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/sites/default/files/Job%20Description%20-%20Typist%20Witness%20Care%20Officer%20(HOLMES).pdf
-
Am I right in thinking the 3 of you are of the opinion that the PJ could not possibly have had access to the original statements made by UK citizens after the UK police left Portugal in September because they were stored on HOLMES?
Would someone care to explain how questions relating to original statements taken by UK police could be formulated when the PJ requested rogatory interviews in 2008?
For example:
From the Letter of Request:
* Interview to RAJINDER RAJ BALU as a witness, 62, BIXXXXXXXX ROXX, HeXXXXXXX, Brentwood, Essex. He should be asked the following questions :
* Do you confirm your previous statements to the British Police ?
* What did you do on 3rd May, 2007, between 6.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. ?
* How did you get to know that a child was missing ?
* Did you take part in the searches ? Where and with whom did you look for the missing girl ?
* Do you know a man identified as NEIL BERRY ? Who is he ? How did you know him ? Did you travel together to Portugal ? Did he travel to Portugal with his family ?
* State clearly who went to buy the food at the TAPAS RESTAURANT, what food was it and the way taken.
* Any further questions deemed useful, necessary or pertinent in view of the previous replies.
* Is there any supplementary explanation that you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth ?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CR2/cr2_113.jpg
Many people rang the Crimestoppers number if they thought they had information. The statements taken from them were not released at the request of the UK. A very simple reason for statements to be unavailable.
-
Many people rang the Crimestoppers number if they thought they had information. The statements taken from them were not released at the request of the UK. A very simple reason for statements to be unavailable.
Graham McKenzie rang Crimestoppers
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
-
Graham McKenzie rang Crimestoppers
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
** Caller Removes Anonymity**
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
-
** Caller Removes Anonymity**
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GRAHAM-MCKENZIE.htm
The questionnaires completed by UK holidaymakers would not have been under the cover of anonymity.
These are just a few examples from the files of sightings in the UK sent to the PJ by LP, all of which contain personal information.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ap/A5_5/apenso5_vol_5_p1091a.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ap/A5_5/apenso5_vol_5_p1015.jpg ( confirmed scanned & sent to Portugal)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ap/A5_5/apenso5_vol_5_p1015.jpg (contains sensitive information)
I ask again - what would be the reason for none of the completed questionnaires from the 599 issued being in the PJ files for their reference?
-
The questionnaires completed by UK holidaymakers would not have been under the cover of anonymity.
These are just a few examples from the files of sightings in the UK sent to the PJ by LP, all of which contain personal information.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ap/A5_5/apenso5_vol_5_p1091a.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ap/A5_5/apenso5_vol_5_p1015.jpg ( confirmed scanned & sent to Portugal)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ap/A5_5/apenso5_vol_5_p1015.jpg (contains sensitive information)
I ask again - what would be the reason for none of the completed questionnaires from the 599 issued being in the PJ files for their reference?
Misty are those last two links the same?
-
The questionnaires completed by UK holidaymakers would not have been under the cover of anonymity.
These are just a few examples from the files of sightings in the UK sent to the PJ by LP, all of which contain personal information.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ap/A5_5/apenso5_vol_5_p1091a.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ap/A5_5/apenso5_vol_5_p1015.jpg ( confirmed scanned & sent to Portugal)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/ap/A5_5/apenso5_vol_5_p1015.jpg (contains sensitive information)
I ask again - what would be the reason for none of the completed questionnaires from the 599 issued being in the PJ files for their reference?
I can think of no reason why the Portuguese would keep them secret. Therefore they are missing because the Portuguese didn't have them (as is suggested by UK police telling the PJ informally what was in them) or the UK wanted them kept secret. The archiving was delayed because these UK organisations got lawyered up and tried to stop things being released;
The Association of Chief Police Officers, The Chief Constable of Leicestershire, The Serious Organised Crime Agency, police and legal authorities in the United Kingdom and Crimestoppers
Some documents slipped through, like the one in your first link which says it shouldn't be seen by the public. That's because the only way to find those random documents was to examine all the files to find them. In the end they settled for removing easily found documents which had been filed together, like the Crimestoppers documents.
It was ironic really. The UK forced it's way into the investigation, showered the PJ with information and advice and then panicked when they realised everything was going to be made public. Not everything done in the UK was given to the PJ; CEOP, for example, invited holidaymakers to upload their photos to their website but they're not in the PJ files.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LAWYERS_UK_POLICE.htm
-
Am I right in thinking the 3 of you are of the opinion that the PJ could not possibly have had access to the original statements made by UK citizens after the UK police left Portugal in September because they were stored on HOLMES?
Would someone care to explain how questions relating to original statements taken by UK police could be formulated when the PJ requested rogatory interviews in 2008?
For example:
From the Letter of Request:
* Interview to RAJINDER RAJ BALU as a witness, 62, BIXXXXXXXX ROXX, HeXXXXXXX, Brentwood, Essex. He should be asked the following questions :
* Do you confirm your previous statements to the British Police ?
* What did you do on 3rd May, 2007, between 6.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. ?
* How did you get to know that a child was missing ?
* Did you take part in the searches ? Where and with whom did you look for the missing girl ?
* Do you know a man identified as NEIL BERRY ? Who is he ? How did you know him ? Did you travel together to Portugal ? Did he travel to Portugal with his family ?
* State clearly who went to buy the food at the TAPAS RESTAURANT, what food was it and the way taken.
* Any further questions deemed useful, necessary or pertinent in view of the previous replies.
* Is there any supplementary explanation that you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth ?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CR2/cr2_113.jpg
I can only speak for myself. In my case you are wrong in your thinking ?{)(**
-
I can think of no reason why the Portuguese would keep them secret. Therefore they are missing because the Portuguese didn't have them (as is suggested by UK police telling the PJ informally what was in them) or the UK wanted them kept secret. The archiving was delayed because these UK organisations got lawyered up and tried to stop things being released;
The Association of Chief Police Officers, The Chief Constable of Leicestershire, The Serious Organised Crime Agency, police and legal authorities in the United Kingdom and Crimestoppers
Some documents slipped through, like the one in your first link which says it shouldn't be seen by the public. That's because the only way to find those random documents was to examine all the files to find them. In the end they settled for removing easily found documents which had been filed together, like the Crimestoppers documents.
It was ironic really. The UK forced it's way into the investigation, showered the PJ with information and advice and then panicked when they realised everything was going to be made public. Not everything done in the UK was given to the PJ; CEOP, for example, invited holidaymakers to upload their photos to their website but they're not in the PJ files.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LAWYERS_UK_POLICE.htm
IMO the questionnaires were excluded from the PJ files because they were covered by the Data Protection Act.
-
I can only speak for myself. In my case you are wrong in your thinking ?{)(**
Would you care to elaborate?
-
IMO the questionnaires were excluded from the PJ files because they were covered by the Data Protection Act.
Does the Data Protection Act apply in Portugal, or is it just a UK law?
If the information went only on to HOLMES and paper copies were never sent to Portugal, then this may well be the case.
-
Does the Data Protection Act apply in Portugal, or is it just a UK law?
If the information went only on to HOLMES and paper copies were never sent to Portugal, then this may well be the case.
The data protection act is an EU directive & it is up to each member state to adopt legislation. Portugal does have data protectiion laws.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/online-privacy-law/portugal.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Protection_Directive
The statements taken in Portugal would not have been subject to data protection laws when used in the typed-up form for research purposes. Only when put on the DVD did it become illegal to share or upload the content onto the internet.
IMO. (unless someone more learned can correct me)
-
As the DVDs were legally issued to journalists and others, the data they contained must have been outside the protection act - what did the authorities think journalists would do with the information if not publish it?
Placing the information on line may or may not have been illegal, however, no one seems interested to pursuing it in law.
-
As the DVDs were legally issued to journalists and others, the data they contained must have been outside the protection act - what did the authorities think journalists would do with the information if not publish it?
Placing the information on line may or may not have been illegal, however, no one seems interested to pursuing it in law.
Has any UK journalist sourced information from the files & published it verbatim, including the personal details to whom the information is attributed?
-
Has any UK journalist sourced information from the files & published it verbatim, including the personal details to whom the information is attributed?
They seemed to prefer looking at pictures to ploughing through written evidence;
The Mail got quite excited when it found;
Murat mugshot taken days after Madeleine disappeared made public for first time
The Sun found the photos of 5A fascinating;
First pictures of Madeleine's bed
The News of the World liked the CCTV of the Paraiso (all together except the McCanns, of coursese;
All together then tragedy
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/NEWS_AUG_2008.htm
-
Would you care to elaborate?
See post #61.
Or to put it another way all the different parties involved vieing for top dog slot doing their own thing => SNAFU with no need whatever for malice aforethought, skulduggery or call it what you will.
Despite all the lip service blah de blah the two countries were clearly not acting on a single point of contact principle. A good recipe for disaster if ever there was one.
-
Has any UK journalist sourced information from the files & published it verbatim, including the personal details to whom the information is attributed?
I don't know of any other journalist either British or foreign who has done so. As explained by Paulo Reis: "I can't reproduce (in verbatim...) documents or reprint pictures and/or images from the files, or I may risk a prison sentence up to two years. I can report about the content of those documents, using my own words (artº 88º, Portuguese Penal Code."
Just as journalists allegedly protect their sources ... it seems they also protect their integrity when granted access to official documents, probably understanding that failure to do so will ensure that neither they or their publication will be granted similar access on future occasions.
-
They seemed to prefer looking at pictures to ploughing through written evidence;
The Mail got quite excited when it found;
Murat mugshot taken days after Madeleine disappeared made public for first time
The Sun found the photos of 5A fascinating;
First pictures of Madeleine's bed
The News of the World liked the CCTV of the Paraiso (all together except the McCanns, of coursese;
All together then tragedy
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/NEWS_AUG_2008.htm
How did publishing those images breach the data protection act?
-
I don't know of any other journalist either British or foreign who has done so. As explained by Paulo Reis: "I can't reproduce (in verbatim...) documents or reprint pictures and/or images from the files, or I may risk a prison sentence up to two years. I can report about the content of those documents, using my own words (artº 88º, Portuguese Penal Code."
Just as journalists allegedly protect their sources ... it seems they also protect their integrity when granted access to official documents, probably understanding that failure to do so will ensure that neither they or their publication will be granted similar access on future occasions.
Well UK journalists certainly printed pictures from the files as seen in my links above. David Harrison wrote a piece from which someone could easily be found in the Telegraph;
ortuguese files also reveal Trevor Francis, a British yachtsman, told police he had seen Madeleine on the island of Margarita on May 16 this year.
Mr Francis, who is retired but owns a nursing home in Worthing, West Sussex, and captains a charter yacht, told police in a statement in June
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/18-Aug8/Telegraph-09-08-08-Transcript.htm
-
How did publishing those images breach the data protection act?
I was just pointing out that the UK comics tabloids were busy finding pictures, not words. That was, it seems, against Portuguese law, but that didn't stop them.
-
See post #61.
Or to put it another way all the different parties involved vieing for top dog slot doing their own thing => SNAFU with no need whatever for malice aforethought, skulduggery or call it what you will.
Despite all the lip service blah de blah the two countries were clearly not acting on a single point of contact principle. A good recipe for disaster if ever there was one.
Leics police set up a Major Incident room, supported by HOLMES, to process all the documentation & messages from the UK end so there was a single database for all UK activity. They also set up one in Portugal, close to the main PJ team, & had a Portuguese-speaking officer assigned to it (presumably Jose Defreitas)which provided a direct link to the Portuguese investigation.
(See Operation Task debrief page 4 http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf)
I can still see no reason why the PJ did not have sight of any of the completed questionnaires, given that there were around 21000 pages at the time of the legal summary & we haven't even seen half of them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm 1st paragraph
"Before actually entering the appreciation of the present inquiry it is useful to take a summarised look at the enormous dimension of the inquiry which is constituted of 17 Volumes, with a global processing of approximately 4500 pages, 9 appendixes that are integrated by 55 Volumes, in which 12000 pages and other relevant pieces were gathered, analysed and treated; further 22 dossiers were constituted, with more than 5000 pages, concerning fanciful or senseless news, yet organised out of mere caution."
-
I was just pointing out that the UK comics tabloids were busy finding pictures, not words. That was, it seems, against Portuguese law, but that didn't stop them.
At the time those pictures were published, IMO someone inside the PJ was breaching judicial secrecy. That is not the same as the data protection act. The release of Pamela Fenn's statement was a breach of data protection.
-
As the DVD was released legally, how can this be reconciled with breach of Data Protection ?
-
Leics police set up a Major Incident room, supported by HOLMES, to process all the documentation & messages from the UK end so there was a single database for all UK activity. They also set up one in Portugal, close to the main PJ team, & had a Portuguese-speaking officer assigned to it (presumably Jose Defreitas)which provided a direct link to the Portuguese investigation.
(See Operation Task debrief page 4 http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf)
I can still see no reason why the PJ did not have sight of any of the completed questionnaires, given that there were around 21000 pages at the time of the legal summary & we haven't even seen half of them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm 1st paragraph
"Before actually entering the appreciation of the present inquiry it is useful to take a summarised look at the enormous dimension of the inquiry which is constituted of 17 Volumes, with a global processing of approximately 4500 pages, 9 appendixes that are integrated by 55 Volumes, in which 12000 pages and other relevant pieces were gathered, analysed and treated; further 22 dossiers were constituted, with more than 5000 pages, concerning fanciful or senseless news, yet organised out of mere caution."
I don't see your point in relationship to what I posted.
First para you are telling me something I obviously already knew as I had posted about it earlier.
Second para we don't know they didn't but there are more than enough reasons why they didn't if they didn't
Third para: yeah so there was a lot of bumf flying around ?
-
I don't see your point in relationship to what I posted.
First para you are telling me something I obviously already knew as I had posted about it earlier.
Second para we don't know they didn't but there are more than enough reasons why they didn't if they didn't
Third para: yeah so there was a lot of bumf flying around ?
I'm blowed if I know what your actual point really is, Alice.
-
Leics police set up a Major Incident room, supported by HOLMES, to process all the documentation & messages from the UK end so there was a single database for all UK activity. They also set up one in Portugal, close to the main PJ team, & had a Portuguese-speaking officer assigned to it (presumably Jose Defreitas)which provided a direct link to the Portuguese investigation.
(See Operation Task debrief page 4 http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf)
I can still see no reason why the PJ did not have sight of any of the completed questionnaires, given that there were around 21000 pages at the time of the legal summary & we haven't even seen half of them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm 1st paragraph
"Before actually entering the appreciation of the present inquiry it is useful to take a summarised look at the enormous dimension of the inquiry which is constituted of 17 Volumes, with a global processing of approximately 4500 pages, 9 appendixes that are integrated by 55 Volumes, in which 12000 pages and other relevant pieces were gathered, analysed and treated; further 22 dossiers were constituted, with more than 5000 pages, concerning fanciful or senseless news, yet organised out of mere caution."
It doesn't matter how hard you try, there's no evidence that the PJ had the questionnaires. They are mentioned twice in the files and it's LP officers who mention them, not the PJ. The context in both examples is they are informing the PJ what is in the questionnaires.
-
At the time those pictures were published, someone inside the PJ was breaching judicial secrecy. That is not the same as the data protection act. The release of Pamela Fenn's statement was a breach of data protection.
If you read the links you would know that the UK tabloids took the pictures from the released files. Who released Mrs Fenn's statement?
-
I'm blowed if I know what your actual point really is, Alice.
Aw! I am sure you do really.
But if not don't worry this is not real life.
-
It doesn't matter how hard you try, there's no evidence that the PJ had the questionnaires. They are mentioned twice in the files and it's LP officers who mention them, not the PJ. The context in both examples is they are informing the PJ what is in the questionnaires.
Equally there is no evidence they weren't given all statements from witnesses in Luz on 3/5/07, without which they could not possibly carry out a proper investigation.
-
Equally there is no evidence they weren't given all statements from witnesses in Luz on 3/5/07, without which they could not possibly carry out a proper investigation.
A summary was probably OK too Misty otherwise they had to translate all that information into Portuguese as well.
-
A summary was probably OK too Misty otherwise they had to translate all that information into Portuguese as well.
Think of all those opportunities for translation errors.
-
A summary was probably OK too Misty otherwise they had to translate all that information into Portuguese as well.
Not really, Rob. There was documentation in other languages too - was that all summarised? Who would decide what was relevant to the investigation & what could be omitted?
-
Is that not what HOLMES is designed to do - sort out the relevant from the irrelevant and flag it up ?
-
Is that not what HOLMES is designed to do - sort out the relevant from the irrelevant and flag it up ?
If that was the way it worked then it failed dismally in Crecheman's case.
-
Is that not what HOLMES is designed to do - sort out the relevant from the irrelevant and flag it up ?
[/b]
Which then probably requires informed operator intervention. 8(>((
-
The files: Food for thought:
"There is nothing to stop the file containing a great deal more information than is listed here - for instance copies of the engineering drawings for any bespoke parts could also be included. However, these should not be used to pack the file at the expense of the more relevant information on how the equipment operates and how it meets the safety objectives of the Directives".
&%+((£
-
Equally there is no evidence they weren't given all statements from witnesses in Luz on 3/5/07, without which they could not possibly carry out a proper investigation.
I think the point has been made that it's not possible to prove that the PJ received the questionnaires from LP. Therefore criticising them for not examining them isn't sustainable.
-
Don't think this is my belief at all. "This bit isn't my view "So we end up with a compromise where Jane and Smith both see the same person carrying the same child but the man hung around PdL with a child in his arms for an hour or so between 9:15 and 10:15 PM."
It is what we would have to believe if the alleged abduction occurred at 9:15 and the Smith sighting was relevant.
I disagree, Rob.
I believe that Tannerman had an accomplice who was likely female and OC staff, someone known to the children. This accomplice lifted Madeleine, her head on his right arm .... and passed her over to Tannerman at the front entrance / door. This manoevre caused her head to rest on Tannerman's left arm (as we see in the images)
I believe that Gerry and Jez talking in the street + Jane witnessing the (erm .. alleged) abductor caused the get- away driver to drive off rather than pick up Tannerman and Madeleine.
Meanwhile, IMO the accomplice went back to where she lived, likely in the Staff quarters building in Rua D'Escola and Tannerman left in the lurch went there ... before setting off again down Rua D'escola where he met the Smiths.
-
I disagree, Rob.
I believe that Tannerman had an accomplice who was likely female and OC staff, someone known to the children. This accomplice lifted Madeleine, her head on his right arm .... and passed her over to Tannerman at the front entrance / door. This manoevre caused her head to rest on Tannerman's left arm (as we see in the images)
I believe that Gerry and Jez talking in the street + Jane witnessing the (erm .. alleged) abductor caused the get- away driver to drive off rather than pick up Tannerman and Madeleine.
Meanwhile, IMO the accomplice went back to where she lived, likely in the Staff quarters building in Rua D'Escola and Tannerman left in the lurch went there ... before setting off again down Rua D'escola where he met the Smiths.
I agree that Tannerman having an accomplice who might very well have been female is a workable scenario. I'm still going with the window though, rather than the door.
I don't think he was Smithman; I think he was a different entity.
I think you are right in thinking something happened to Tannerman's get away car. Whether that was because of Jez and Gerry's chance meeting or something else ... but having gone so far he had no choice but to keep going.
I don't think the original intention would have been to openly carry a child for any distance and risk being seen (as it turned out he was).
Or maybe he had left it at the small parking area outside Block 6 ??
-
I agree that Tannerman having an accomplice who might very well have been female is a workable scenario. I'm still going with the window though, rather than the door.
I don't think he was Smithman; I think he was a different entity.
I think you are right in thinking something happened to Tannerman's get away car. Whether that was because of Jez and Gerry's chance meeting or something else ... but having gone so far he had no choice but to keep going.
I don't think the original intention would have been to openly carry a child for any distance and risk being seen (as it turned out he was).
Or maybe he had left it at the small parking area outside Block 6 ??
I've ruled the window out because there were no fibres on the frame nor marks on the cill and the gap was too narrow for a man tio get thru without a lot of palava. He would have left marks , fibres, scratches or dirt IMO Also possibly finger prints. Also look at the level that the cill is on photos and videos. He couldn't have strode in, the cill on the outside was too high .... and it would have done him a serious damage had he tried.... OUCH !
Furthermore, try passing a floppy body thru a window that narrow. One man on his own couldn't have done it and even with two people it would have been very tricky ....elbows and the like would have scraped the window frame IMO.
The door with a key is much easier. ... and keys have been used it seems in earlier burglaries
- Key in
- Key turned .... door opens, and no touching necessary
- Leave key in door
- Exit pulling door to, using key
- Pass Madeleine over to somone
- Remove key without touching door and away we go ! No finger prints and very easy too.
Like you, I am quite sure that the original intention would not have been to carry Madeleine through the streets. The get way car failed to arrive for some reason ... or possibly as you say he had left his car in the "little Car Park " outside block 6
AIMHO
-
I'm surprised by Amaral's answer in this interview. "Portuguese cop: Met has finally caught up on McCann" https://youtu.be/PO3bCpVhSQQ
-
I'm surprised by Amaral's answer in this interview. "Portuguese cop: Met has finally caught up on McCann" https://youtu.be/PO3bCpVhSQQ
He doesn't say that as you would know if you watched the video instead of just reading the caption.
-
He doesn't say that as you would know if you watched the video instead of just reading the caption.
I did watch it but I must admit I never detailed what I found surprising. It was him blaming Rebelo for not following up on the Smith sighting. I thought Amaral missed plenty of opportunity too.
-
Two highly trained professional investigations, one private, one official have ruled out Tannerman in favour of Smithman yet you stubbornly cling to him by your fingertips. Can I ask why Brietta?
-
Sean looks completely comfortable during the minutes Gerry makes the speech. https://youtu.be/pepDNi7WSYs
"Gerry McCann's speech on return to the UK".
-
I did watch it but I must admit I never detailed what I found surprising. It was him blaming Rebelo for not following up on the Smith sighting. I thought Amaral missed plenty of opportunity too.
I don't think the Amaral investigation paid the slightest heed to the Smith sighting after the three witnesses had visited the scene.
If memory serves me well ... it was the Rebello investigation which carried out the diligence of obtaining a receipt from Kelly's bar and interviewing the staff at the restaurant where the Smiths had dined, but who could not remember a family of nine.
-
I did watch it but I must admit I never detailed what I found surprising. It was him blaming Rebelo for not following up on the Smith sighting. I thought Amaral missed plenty of opportunity too.
Was he criticising or answering the question 'Why wasn't it investigated after you left?'
-
I did watch it but I must admit I never detailed what I found surprising. It was him blaming Rebelo for not following up on the Smith sighting. I thought Amaral missed plenty of opportunity too.
Reporter "But if everyone thought it important .... " https://youtu.be/PO3bCpVhSQQ?t=66 He then blames his successor but he missed the opportunities himself.
-
I don't think the Amaral investigation paid the slightest heed to the Smith sighting after the three witnesses had visited the scene.
If memory serves me well ... it was the Rebello investigation which carried out the diligence of obtaining a receipt from Kelly's bar and interviewing the staff at the restaurant where the Smiths had dined, but who could not remember a family of nine.
What would you have expected the Amaral investigation to do once the Smiths had been taken through a reconstruction of the sighting? It was only after Martin Smith identified Gerry McCann as possibly the man he had seen that the minutiae of the timeline became important.
-
What would you have expected the Amaral investigation to do once the Smiths had been taken through a reconstruction of the sighting? It was only after Martin Smith identified Gerry McCann as possibly the man he had seen that the minutiae of the timeline became important.
They should have done e-fits then. If they couldn't do e-fits then how can they do e-fits later after seeing Gerry come of the plane? Reverse that if they could do e-fits later they could have done e-fits earlier.
-
Here's my theory for reading before it gets whooshed.
Amaral never gave any credence to Jane Tanner's sighting, even less so when there were suspicions it was Murat.
I think he then saw Crecheman's statement & kept it in reserve as he pursued the McCanns. Once he had acquired enough "evidence" & they were charged, prosecution would have produced Crecheman so that the McCanns could not have used the unidentified Tannerman in defence of their claims of abduction. Whilst Smithman remained unidentified too, Tannerman could never be charged as Madeleine's abductor.
After the McCanns left Portugal & the PP didn't have enough evidence to charge them, cue M Smith to identify Smithman as Gerry. Take a fresh statement, move the time of the sighting on a bit then add that to all the other "evidence" which, in Amaral's eyes should have been enough. The presence of Crecheman could then have been revealed, Only it didn't work because Amaral was sidelined - so Crecheman's details remained buried & would have remained buried without the McCanns determination to get the investigation reopened.
IMO Crecheman was Amaral's Ace, which he never got to play - probably because he couldn't without incriminating himself after the UK authorities launched a review.
Amaral wants you to believe that Tannerman was Gerry & Smithman was Gerry - he said so in Chapter 20 of his book
Extract from Chapter 20 - An Irish Family In A State Of Shock.
"When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, "sent," the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat's house, but west in the direction of the beach."
All my own opinion, exercising the same freedom of speech Amaral has been legally granted.
-
Two highly trained professional investigations, one private, one official have ruled out Tannerman in favour of Smithman yet you stubbornly cling to him by your fingertips. Can I ask why Brietta?
It is perfectly acceptable to ask questions just as it is also acceptable to choose not to answer them. Repeated posting of the same question however constitutes goading and will be removed.
My own view is that Tannerman cannot properly be ruled out since there are still too many unanswered questions surrounding Crècheman, one being why was he walking from west to east if he was returning from the night crèche?
-
It is perfectly acceptable to ask questions just as it is also acceptable to choose not to answer them. Repeated posting of the same question however constitutes goading and will be removed.
My own view is that Tannerman cannot properly be ruled out since there are still too many unanswered questions surrounding Crècheman, one being why was he walking from west to east if he was returning from the night crèche?
Fair dos. I think I made my point anyway.
-
Here's my theory for reading before it gets whooshed.
Amaral never gave any credence to Jane Tanner's sighting, even less so when there were suspicions it was Murat.
I think he then saw Crecheman's statement & kept it in reserve as he pursued the McCanns. Once he had acquired enough "evidence" & they were charged, prosecution would have produced Crecheman so that the McCanns could not have used the unidentified Tannerman in defence of their claims of abduction. Whilst Smithman remained unidentified too, Tannerman could never be charged as Madeleine's abductor.
After the McCanns left Portugal & the PP didn't have enough evidence to charge them, cue M Smith to identify Smithman as Gerry. Take a fresh statement, move the time of the sighting on a bit then add that to all the other "evidence" which, in Amaral's eyes should have been enough. The presence of Crecheman could then have been revealed, Only it didn't work because Amaral was sidelined - so Crecheman's details remained buried & would have remained buried without the McCanns determination to get the investigation reopened.
IMO Crecheman was Amaral's Ace, which he never got to play - probably because he couldn't without incriminating himself after the UK authorities launched a review.
Amaral wants you to believe that Tannerman was Gerry & Smithman was Gerry - he said so in Chapter 20 of his book
Extract from Chapter 20 - An Irish Family In A State Of Shock.
"When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, "sent," the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat's house, but west in the direction of the beach."
All my own opinion, exercising the same freedom of speech Amaral has been legally granted.
So why didn't Rebelo, while reviewing the case, discover Crecheman ?
-
Here's my theory for reading before it gets whooshed.
Amaral never gave any credence to Jane Tanner's sighting, even less so when there were suspicions it was Murat.
I think he then saw Crecheman's statement & kept it in reserve as he pursued the McCanns. Once he had acquired enough "evidence" & they were charged, prosecution would have produced Crecheman so that the McCanns could not have used the unidentified Tannerman in defence of their claims of abduction. Whilst Smithman remained unidentified too, Tannerman could never be charged as Madeleine's abductor.
After the McCanns left Portugal & the PP didn't have enough evidence to charge them, cue M Smith to identify Smithman as Gerry. Take a fresh statement, move the time of the sighting on a bit then add that to all the other "evidence" which, in Amaral's eyes should have been enough. The presence of Crecheman could then have been revealed, Only it didn't work because Amaral was sidelined - so Crecheman's details remained buried & would have remained buried without the McCanns determination to get the investigation reopened.
IMO Crecheman was Amaral's Ace, which he never got to play - probably because he couldn't without incriminating himself after the UK authorities launched a review.
Amaral wants you to believe that Tannerman was Gerry & Smithman was Gerry - he said so in Chapter 20 of his book
Extract from Chapter 20 - An Irish Family In A State Of Shock.
"When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, "sent," the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat's house, but west in the direction of the beach."
All my own opinion, exercising the same freedom of speech Amaral has been legally granted.
At least Amaral based his theories on the facts. You are lacking the evidence you need to accuse him of hiding crecheman's 'statement'. He never made a statement afaik. He may have completed a questionnaire for LP along with 558 other people, but none of them are in the PJ files. Are they all hidden away by Amaral, do you think?
-
Here's my theory for reading before it gets whooshed.
Amaral never gave any credence to Jane Tanner's sighting, even less so when there were suspicions it was Murat.
I think he then saw Crecheman's statement & kept it in reserve as he pursued the McCanns. Once he had acquired enough "evidence" & they were charged, prosecution would have produced Crecheman so that the McCanns could not have used the unidentified Tannerman in defence of their claims of abduction. Whilst Smithman remained unidentified too, Tannerman could never be charged as Madeleine's abductor.
After the McCanns left Portugal & the PP didn't have enough evidence to charge them, cue M Smith to identify Smithman as Gerry. Take a fresh statement, move the time of the sighting on a bit then add that to all the other "evidence" which, in Amaral's eyes should have been enough. The presence of Crecheman could then have been revealed, Only it didn't work because Amaral was sidelined - so Crecheman's details remained buried & would have remained buried without the McCanns determination to get the investigation reopened.
IMO Crecheman was Amaral's Ace, which he never got to play - probably because he couldn't without incriminating himself after the UK authorities launched a review.
Amaral wants you to believe that Tannerman was Gerry & Smithman was Gerry - he said so in Chapter 20 of his book
Extract from Chapter 20 - An Irish Family In A State Of Shock.
"When we receive this information, at the end of September, we think we finally have the piece that will allow us to complete the puzzle. Because of this, we may be able to reconstruct the course of events on that cold night of May 3rd in Vila da Luz. We have a better understanding of why Jane Tanner, "sent," the alleged abductor in the opposite direction to that taken by the man seen by the Smith family. Suspicion had to be diverted from Gerald who - if he was the guilty party - would have taken this route: leaving apartment 5A, the individual who was carrying the child, did not go east, towards Murat's house, but west in the direction of the beach."
All my own opinion, exercising the same freedom of speech Amaral has been legally granted.
Did he? That's not how I read it.
In addition
"Yeah right Sr Amaral so tell us where this geezer was lurking for about 45 minutes to an hour"?
I would imagine he(Sr Amaral) would have seen that one coming or he thinks the public and PP are to dim to work it out.
-
Did he? That's not how I read it.
In addition
"Yeah right Sr Amaral so tell us where this geezer was lurking for about 45 minutes to an hour"?
I would imagine he(Sr Amaral) would have seen that one coming or he thinks the public and PP are to dim to work it out.
From Amaral's perspective - Chapter 8 TToTL.
......At this time, images of Robert Murat - considered to be the main suspect - begin to be circulated all over the world. After they return to Ireland, the Smiths continue to follow the case. They learn that, according to Jane Tanner's statements, Murat is definitely the man encountered on the night of the abduction. Mr Smith then gets in touch with the Irish police to relate what he saw on the night of May 3rd. He insists, categorically, that the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat. He is sure of it because he knows him.
With hindsight, he is utterly convinced that the little girl was definitely Madeleine. We secretly organise for the Smiths to come to Portugal. On May 26th, in the offices of the Department of Criminal Investigation in Portimão, we interview the father and his son. What they say seems credible. However, because of the dim street lighting, they say they would have a hard time formally recognising the man who was carrying the child. On the other hand, they describe very clearly how the man was holding the little girl and how he was walking. That scene is indelibly printed in their memory. After their interview, they go back to the scene, accompanied by investigators. They indicate the precise place where they came across the man.
Their coming to Portugal as well as their statements are kept secret. Within a few days, they go back to Ireland, but contact is maintained: they undertake to let us have any further details they remember. We finally have credible witness statements about that stranger who, on the night of May 3rd, was walking in the streets of Vila da Luz with a child in his arms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does that not sound to you like Amaral believed the 2 sightings were one & the same person, because it sure does to me?
Back to the opening post - if Crecheman's questionnaire/statement/whatever it was put himself in the vicinity of 5A around the time of Jane's sighting, how would the PJ have worked that into the equation, given the questions we have about Crecheman's direction of travel?
To rule Tannerman out as Crecheman at that stage only left Smithman, whom the Smiths were unable to identify because they said so. If he was an invention, he would never be identified, thus leaving the abduction scenario absolutely in focus & contrary to Amaral's thesis. After all, the Smith family were totally independent of the Tapas 9. If he was a genuine sighting then why, oh why, did Amaral do absolutely nothing about it bar keeping in touch with the Smiths?
-
So why didn't Rebelo, while reviewing the case, discover Crecheman ?
IMO. Because the statement wasn't there to be seen or he never followed up the creche aspect?
-
If the statement wasn't there how did Redwood find it?
-
If the statement wasn't there how did Redwood find it?
HOLMES.
-
HOLMES.
Possibly, but it would be more likely, IMO, that it went directly from LP to OG (Holmes).
-
Possibly, but it would be more likely, IMO, that it went directly from LP to OG (Holmes).
Like it was never shared with the PJ at all as it came in after the case was closed down in Portugal?
-
HOLMES.
So it was put on there the LP right at the beginning, never a paper version in Portugal.
-
So it was put on there the LP right at the beginning, never a paper version in Portugal.
There would have been the paper copy completed by Crecheman, recorded by LP & put onto HOLMES & then it would have been sent to the PJ in some format - otherwise, why bother with questionnaires if the Lead Investigators would never see them?
-
There would have been the paper copy completed by Crecheman, recorded by LP & put onto HOLMES & then it would have been sent to the PJ in some format - otherwise, why bother with questionnaires if the Lead Investigators would never see them?
Could the PJ have filed them in the round bin?
-
There would have been the paper copy completed by Crecheman, recorded by LP & put onto HOLMES & then it would have been sent to the PJ in some format - otherwise, why bother with questionnaires if the Lead Investigators would never see them?
Maybe LP acted as the PJ are usually accused of and just decided it wasn’t important and filed it.
-
Could the PJ have filed them in the round bin?
Have you anything to support that idea, other than your imagination?
-
Could the PJ have filed them in the round bin?
Why?
-
Maybe LP acted as the PJ are usually accused of and just decided it wasn’t important and filed it.
What - over 500 of them? Seriously?
-
What - over 500 of them? Seriously?
Why is it hard to file over 500 questionaires?
-
HOLMES.
If it was in Holmes how could Amaral have hidden it ?
-
Why is it hard to file over 500 questionaires?
I cannot believe we are having this discussion when the PJ went to such pains to question locals & search so many places in the days following Madeleine's disappearance.
-
If it was in Holmes how could Amaral have hidden it ?
The UK had a copy, the PJ had another copy. If someone sends you a copy of an important document & you destroy it does that mean it no longer exists or just that you don't have a copy?
-
There would have been the paper copy completed by Crecheman, recorded by LP & put onto HOLMES & then it would have been sent to the PJ in some format - otherwise, why bother with questionnaires if the Lead Investigators would never see them?
The questionnaires were devised and sent out by LP. There is no evidence that the PJ asked them to do that or knew that they'd done it. It could have been done as part of the UK police's routine in such cases.
It's a fact that LP officers had access to them. There is no evidence that the PJ did.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htmormation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_MOBILE.htm
-
The UK had a copy, the PJ had another copy. If someone sends you a copy of an important document & you destroy it does that mean it no longer exists or just that you don't have a copy?
But it wasn't an important document. Crecheman saw nothing and he was one of several adults I presume, carrying their children home from the crèche. I very much doubt Amaral even read it.
-
The questionnaires were devised and sent out by LP. There is no evidence that the PJ asked them to do that or knew that they'd done it. It could have been done as part of the UK police's routine in such cases.
It's a fact that LP officers had access to them. There is no evidence that the PJ did.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htmormation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_MOBILE.htm
Would you rather the Portuguese police had to send a very lengthy ILOR to the UK to obtain statements from all the holidaymakers in Luz on 3/5/07?
-
Would you rather the Portuguese police had to send a very lengthy ILOR to the UK to obtain statements from all the holidaymakers in Luz on 3/5/07?
Do you have any evidence that the PJ wanted statements from all those holidaymakers?
-
Would you rather the Portuguese police had to send a very lengthy ILOR to the UK to obtain statements from all the holidaymakers in Luz on 3/5/07?
What difference does G-Unit's opinion make ? We are discussing what actually happened.
-
The UK had a copy, the PJ had another copy. If someone sends you a copy of an important document & you destroy it does that mean it no longer exists or just that you don't have a copy?
In your opinion
-
A reminder to all posters that sniping and goading is unacceptable just in case anyone has forgotten.
-
Putting oneself in the shoes of the police for a moment, Jane Tanner reported seeing a man carrying a child in a direction which was not consistent with someone returning from the night creche. That alone would appear to rule out those parents who had collected their child from the creche and went straight back to their apartment. It was never explained by Redwood why Crecheman was walking in the direction he claimed to be going, question is why? It is bizarre to suggest that a parent would carry a scantily clad youngster around the streets on a cold windy night just for the hell of it.
In my view the Portuguese police rightly disregarded parents returning from the creche since none of them would have been walking from west to east along the street bordering the north side of block 5.
Any thoughts?
-
But it wasn't an important document. Crecheman saw nothing and he was one of several adults I presume, carrying their children home from the crèche. I very much doubt Amaral even read it.
How do you know Crecheman saw nothing?
-
Like it was never shared with the PJ at all as it came in after the case was closed down in Portugal?
Maybe it was sent to Ricardo Paiva and discovered amongst the files found as a result of testimony given in the libel case in 2010 two years after Madeleine's case was shelved.
Quote
More than 50 potential new leads into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann surfaced last night as details of a previously unknown police file were released.
\\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\\\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\ \\\\
“Every piece was treated the same way – Ricardo Paiva writes on it ‘this is not relevant to the investigation’.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7353737/Madeleine-McCann-more-than-50-new-leads.html
-
Putting oneself in the shoes of the police for a moment, Jane Tanner reported seeing a man carrying a child in a direction which was not consistent with someone returning from the night creche. That alone would appear to rule out those parents who had collected their child from the creche and went straight back to their apartment. It was never explained by Redwood why Crecheman was walking in the direction he claimed to be going, question is why? It is bizarre to suggest that a parent would carry a scantily clad youngster around the streets on a cold windy night just for the hell of it.
In my view the Portuguese police rightly disregarded parents returning from the creche since none of them would have been walking from west to east along the street bordering the north side of block 5.
Any thoughts?
I think Misty's theory has jumped into clearer focus http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8487.msg425058#msg425058 with reference to Amaral's interpretation of apparently the who the why and the where of Tannerman and his metamorphosis into Smithman.
Certainly gives pause for thought.
-
How do you know Crecheman saw nothing?
Because the limited information we know suggests that unless you believe Redwood was deliberately lying to the public.
-
I think Misty's theory has jumped into clearer focus http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8487.msg425058#msg425058 with reference to Amaral's interpretation of apparently the who the why and the where of Tannerman and his metamorphosis into Smithman.
Certainly gives pause for thought.
Tannerman hasn't metamorphosised into Smithman. Tannerman has all but been eliminated. Smithman is still being sought.
-
How do you know Crecheman saw nothing?
A theory should, in my opinion, follow and attempt to explain known facts. Your hypotheses rest on facts you think, hope and suggest could or should exist. Without evidence it's all guesswork.
-
Amaral was faced with the same conundrum which we are considering here and that is how an innocent tourist supposedly returning from the night creche could possibly be mistaken for Tannerman. In my opinion he can't and that is why Crechman and all the other parents who collected a child from the creche that night were discounted. Amaral had no need to ignore Crechman's statement any more than he did any other parents because they simply added nothing to the investigation.
Jane Tanner reported seeing a man carrying a child but that man could well have been an as yet unidentified innocent local or a tourist walking home from a friends house or a holiday apartment. He certainly wasn't returning from the Ocean Club night creche because if he did, he chose a hell-of-a-detour.
-
Because the limited information we know suggests that unless you believe Redwood was deliberately lying to the public.
DCI Redwood on Crimewatch Oct 2013
One of the things that we picked up very quickly was the fact that there was a night crèche that was operating from the main Ocean Club reception – and 8 families had left 11 children in there – and one particular family we spoke to us gave us information that was really interesting and exciting. In fact, I would say it was – it was a revelation moment when, having discussed with them what hey were doing on the night, they themselves believed that they could be the Tanner sighting.
We’re almost certain, now, that this sighting is not the abductor. But very importantly, what it says is that from 9.15, we are able to allow the clock……to move forward and in doing so, things that have not been quite as significant or received quite the same degree of attention are now the centre of our focus.
====================================================================
So the family gave the Met interesting & exciting information. Despite not being 100% sure Crecheman was really Tannerman, AR stated that, more importantly, it allowed the clock to move forward. That doesn't quite say Tannerman was eliminated but that something became more important than Tannerman. IMO.
-
A theory should, in my opinion, follow and attempt to explain known facts. Your hypotheses rest on facts you think, hope and suggest could or should exist. Without evidence it's all guesswork.
Isn't that exactly what the coordinator of the investigation did when he changed Jane's sighting to suit his own hypothesis - and many people believe in his hypothesis? Why do you think he changed the direction of Tannerman's travel when Tannerman could have taken a long detour before ending up on Rua 1 de Maio?
-
DCI Redwood on Crimewatch Oct 2013
One of the things that we picked up very quickly was the fact that there was a night crèche that was operating from the main Ocean Club reception – and 8 families had left 11 children in there – and one particular family we spoke to us gave us information that was really interesting and exciting. In fact, I would say it was – it was a revelation moment when, having discussed with them what hey were doing on the night, they themselves believed that they could be the Tanner sighting.
We’re almost certain, now, that this sighting is not the abductor. But very importantly, what it says is that from 9.15, we are able to allow the clock……to move forward and in doing so, things that have not been quite as significant or received quite the same degree of attention are now the centre of our focus.
====================================================================
So the family gave the Met interesting & exciting information. Despite not being 100% sure Crecheman was really Tannerman, AR stated that, more importantly, it allowed the clock to move forward. That doesn't quite say Tannerman was eliminated but that something became more important than Tannerman. IMO.
No it doesn't Misty. It says that the family believed they were the Tanner sighting ( the interesting and exciting information) and now OG were almost certain that Tannerman/Crecheman was not the abductor. Further because the abduction was not tied to Tannerman/Crecheman other elements which happened that night i.e. Smithman sighting had no garnered more significance. To interpret Redwood's words in any other way is simply wishful thinking.
-
Why is it hard to file over 500 questionaires?
Finding a rubbish bin big enough.
-
No it doesn't Misty. It says that the family believed they were the Tanner sighting ( the interesting and exciting information) and now OG were almost certain that Tannerman/Crecheman was not the abductor. Further because the abduction was not tied to Tannerman/Crecheman other elements which happened that night i.e. Smithman sighting had no garnered more significance. To interpret Redwood's words in any other way is simply wishful thinking.
What do you think AR hoped to gain from investigating the sighting of a man who had already been identified as Gerry by one of the people who saw said man?
-
What do you think AR hoped to gain from investigating the sighting of a man who had already been identified as Gerry by one of the people who saw said man?
Make your mind up ! I thought Martin Smith by that time had said he no longer thought the man was Gerry. You really can't have it both ways Misty.
-
Make your mind up ! I thought Martin Smith by that time had said he no longer thought the man was Gerry. You really can't have it both ways Misty.
How could he trust what they say, one minute identifying Gerry then withdrawing? Saying couldn't identify the person but later draw e-fits.
-
Make your mind up ! I thought Martin Smith by that time had said he no longer thought the man was Gerry. You really can't have it both ways Misty.
So how do you investigate a sighting from the testimony of an unreliable witness?
-
So how do you investigate a sighting from the testimony of an unreliable witness?
So does Martin Smith still think who he saw was Gerry or not ?
-
So does Martin Smith still think who he saw was Gerry or not ?
I have absolutely no idea what he thinks, only what he reportedly said.
-
So how do you investigate a sighting from the testimony of an unreliable witness?
Speaking of unreliable witnesses, can we believe anything Gerry McCann stated as occurring on the night Madeleine disappeared given he failed to relate correctly which door he used to enter the apartment and a short time later forgot on which side of the street he encountered Jez Wilkins?
-
Speaking of unreliable witnesses, can we believe anything Gerry McCann stated as occurring on the night Madeleine disappeared given he failed to relate correctly which door he used to enter the apartment and a short time later forgot on which side of the street he encountered Jez Wilkins?
Short answer, no.
-
Speaking of unreliable witnesses, can we believe anything Gerry McCann stated as occurring on the night Madeleine disappeared given he failed to relate correctly which door he used to enter the apartment and a short time later forgot on which side of the street he encountered Jez Wilkins?
IMO the door issue was an interpretation error & the Wilkins conversation is only important as an alibi for the lengthy time he was away from the dining table. Men aren't exactly renowned for good memories when it comes to trivialities........
-
IMO the door issue was an interpretation error & the Wilkins conversation is only important as an alibi for the lengthy time he was away from the dining table. Men aren't exactly renowned for good memories when it comes to trivialities........
Gerry admitted within the body of his statement that he had made a mistake in his previous one with regard to the door so I can't see how it is a translation error and I think we all know Gerry's description of his chat with Jez is far more important than you are admitting.
-
Gerry admitted within the body of his statement that he had made a mistake in his previous one with regard to the door so I can't see how it is a translation error and I think we all know Gerry's description of his chat with Jez is far more important than you are admitting.
Getting back to the Smith family sighting, why did Amaral take no action for 4 months despite deciding it was far more credible than Jane's sighting?
-
Getting back to the Smith family sighting, why did Amaral take no action for 4 months despite deciding it was far more credible than Jane's sighting?
And then to blame inaction on his successor seems a bit too much.
-
Isn't that exactly what the coordinator of the investigation did when he changed Jane's sighting to suit his own hypothesis - and many people believe in his hypothesis? Why do you think he changed the direction of Tannerman's travel when Tannerman could have taken a long detour before ending up on Rua 1 de Maio?
The way I read it he didn't change the direction of Tannerman, he thought he was a red herring. Jane's sighting suggested an abductor walking East at 9.15 whereas the man carrying Madeleine walked West at a later time. A 'look over there, not over here' distraction.
-
Getting back to the Smith family sighting, why did Amaral take no action for 4 months despite deciding it was far more credible than Jane's sighting?
What do you think he should have done?
-
So how do you investigate a sighting from the testimony of an unreliable witness?
Smithman is the unreliable witness and his TIME is coming.
-
Smithman is the unreliable witness and his TIME is coming.
There is not much time left.
-
Who knows how long the PJ investigation will continue even though OG may close at the end of the month
-
IMO the door issue was an interpretation error & the Wilkins conversation is only important as an alibi for the lengthy time he was away from the dining table. Men aren't exactly renowned for good memories when it comes to trivialities........
Having a good memory has no bearing on telling the truth. You do need a damn great memory if telling lies, especially a string of them- If you were standing under a lamp you will recall standing under a lamp and not a maybe err um yeah you know... a tree. The statements are so vague with very little PERTINANT detail it really does not sound like a record of what did happen as it happened in my opinion.
I believe the Smiths recalled what they actually did see. I also believe them when they said it wasn't Murat because they knew him.
Strange how something can stay in a strangers mind but the Tapas struggle...
Gerry claimed to know EXACTLY where the table was when they were siting in the tapas bar that night- he demonstrated this by waving his hands saying " it was somewhere about here" oh go on Ger be a love, and stop making claims you can't deliver on. He also had an [b']emphatic No'[/b], not just an ordinary No .why would that be? Why is it so difficult for them to recall things or over state unimportant things?
-
What do you think he should have done?
Amaral could have started where Rebelo did - the Smith family timeline, the CCTV at Estela da Luz, asking reception staff at the hotel if they remembered seeing the Smith family return & at what time.
He could also have told the McCanns that there was another potential suspect but they had to find out through the Irish press 2 weeks later. Why did Amaral want to keep it secret - what was so important about the Smith sighting that it could be neither disclosed nor investigated?
-
Amaral could have started where Rebelo did - the Smith family timeline, the CCTV at Estela da Luz, asking reception staff at the hotel if they remembered seeing the Smith family return & at what time.
He could also have told the McCanns that there was another potential suspect but they had to find out through the Irish press 2 weeks later. Why did Amaral want to keep it secret - what was so important about the Smith sighting that it could be neither disclosed nor investigated?
Depending on the interpretation of the secrecy law ... I can only just accept the secrecy of it while still thinking it the wrong call to make.
I cannot comprehend why it had to wait for the Rebelo investigation to carry out the checks which should have been carried out at the time of reporting.
There was a gap between the PJ being made aware of the Smith sighting by the Garda Síochána and the return of the three Smiths to demonstrate it.
In my opinion that was the optimum time to carry out the corroborating checks you have suggested in your post in time for the Smith return.
-
Amaral could have started where Rebelo did - the Smith family timeline, the CCTV at Estela da Luz, asking reception staff at the hotel if they remembered seeing the Smith family return & at what time.
He could also have told the McCanns that there was another potential suspect but they had to find out through the Irish press 2 weeks later. Why did Amaral want to keep it secret - what was so important about the Smith sighting that it could be neither disclosed nor investigated?
The sighting was investigated. It was only when Martin Smith tentatively identified Gerry that the timeline of the sighting needed further investigation. The whole family agreed the timings. What reason would Amaral have had to investigate further?
Did Rebelo publicise the Smith sighting?
-
The sighting was investigated. It was only when Martin Smith tentatively identified Gerry that the timeline of the sighting needed further investigation. The whole family agreed the timings. What reason would Amaral have had to investigate further?
Did Rebelo publicise the Smith sighting?
How did Amaral investigate it? How did he check their timings when he didn't even have the receipts from the Dolphin & Kelly's? The Smith family timings did not match - both men said they left the Dolphin 30mins before the bill was actually paid.
Rebelo did at least investigate but correctly decided that there was no point in publicising a sighting made by an unreliable witness. IMO
-
How did Amaral investigate it? How did he check their timings when he didn't even have the receipts from the Dolphin & Kelly's? The Smith family timings did not match - both men said they left the Dolphin 30mins before the bill was actually paid.
Rebelo did at least investigate but correctly decided that there was no point in publicising a sighting made by an unreliable witness. IMO
I know you are probably right but could you provide the proof of that Photo of receipt and the sentences from their statement please.
-
I know you are probably right but could you provide the proof of that Photo of receipt and the sentences from their statement please.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Martin Smith:-
— Concerning the facts under investigation, on the 3rd of May, he went with his family to the Dolphin restaurant in Praia da Luz where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and headed toward 'Kelly's Bar'; about a 50 metre distance from the restaurant, following the path, as it is very short.
Aoife Smith :-
— Regarding the 3rd of May, 2007, she went, with all her family, to eat at the Dolphin restaurant, which is close to Kelly's Bar. When they left the restaurant, around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes.
— Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
Peter Smith:-
— He would like to clarify that on the 3rd of May, he and his family went to the Dolphin restaurant, situated in Praia da Luz, where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and went to Kelly's Bar, about one minute away on foot. In Kelly's Bar (he does not remember the name of the street it is on) they had a few drinks, having left from there around 21H50/22H00.
Inquiries carried out under Rebelo
12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3277
External Inquiry
Date 10 ' 10 ' 2007
Place: Kelly's Bar, P da L
Inquiry carried out by Inspectors Rui Fernandes and Ricardo Paiva
Description and results of Inquiry
On this date at about 15.00 we went to Kelly's Bar, located in Rua da Calheta, in Praia da Luz. At the site we were received by an employee of the bar identified as L***** A**** M**** who had been on duty on the night of 3rd May 2007.
When questioned whether on the night in question she remembered the visit to the bar by witness Martin Smith and his family, she replied that she does not remember given the lapse of time between the events and because the bar is daily frequented by dozens of clients of different nationalities.
All the available documentation was requested concerning the expenses in the bar on the night of 3rd May 2007 as we were given the cash register from which photocopies were made referring to the period between 20.00 and 24.00, which is annexed to this report.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P12/12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3257.jpg (duplicate receipt from Dolphin)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P12/12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3258.jpg (duplicate EPS slip showing transaction time)
-
There seem to be a few unreliable witnesses who don't remember times very well. If the Smith sighting was later, of course, there was no-one at the Tapas table.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Martin Smith:-
— Concerning the facts under investigation, on the 3rd of May, he went with his family to the Dolphin restaurant in Praia da Luz where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and headed toward 'Kelly's Bar'; about a 50 metre distance from the restaurant, following the path, as it is very short.
Aoife Smith :-
— Regarding the 3rd of May, 2007, she went, with all her family, to eat at the Dolphin restaurant, which is close to Kelly's Bar. When they left the restaurant, around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes.
— Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
Peter Smith:-
— He would like to clarify that on the 3rd of May, he and his family went to the Dolphin restaurant, situated in Praia da Luz, where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and went to Kelly's Bar, about one minute away on foot. In Kelly's Bar (he does not remember the name of the street it is on) they had a few drinks, having left from there around 21H50/22H00.
Inquiries carried out under Rebelo
12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3277
External Inquiry
Date 10 ' 10 ' 2007
Place: Kelly's Bar, P da L
Inquiry carried out by Inspectors Rui Fernandes and Ricardo Paiva
Description and results of Inquiry
On this date at about 15.00 we went to Kelly's Bar, located in Rua da Calheta, in Praia da Luz. At the site we were received by an employee of the bar identified as L***** A**** M**** who had been on duty on the night of 3rd May 2007.
When questioned whether on the night in question she remembered the visit to the bar by witness Martin Smith and his family, she replied that she does not remember given the lapse of time between the events and because the bar is daily frequented by dozens of clients of different nationalities.
All the available documentation was requested concerning the expenses in the bar on the night of 3rd May 2007 as we were given the cash register from which photocopies were made referring to the period between 20.00 and 24.00, which is annexed to this report.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P12/12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3257.jpg (duplicate receipt from Dolphin)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P12/12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3258.jpg (duplicate EPS slip showing transaction time)
I don't see the problem Misty.
-
I don't see the problem Misty.
According to the male Smiths' timeline, they were in Kelly's Bar for an hour. According to Aoife's, they were in Kelly's Bar for half an hour. So, if they left the restaurant at 9.30pm as per the till receipt, how long did they really spend at the bar & what time did they really head back for the hotel?
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
Martin Smith:-
— Concerning the facts under investigation, on the 3rd of May, he went with his family to the Dolphin restaurant in Praia da Luz where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and headed toward 'Kelly's Bar'; about a 50 metre distance from the restaurant, following the path, as it is very short.
Aoife Smith :-
— Regarding the 3rd of May, 2007, she went, with all her family, to eat at the Dolphin restaurant, which is close to Kelly's Bar. When they left the restaurant, around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes.
— Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
Peter Smith:-
— He would like to clarify that on the 3rd of May, he and his family went to the Dolphin restaurant, situated in Praia da Luz, where they dined. Around 21H00 they left the restaurant and went to Kelly's Bar, about one minute away on foot. In Kelly's Bar (he does not remember the name of the street it is on) they had a few drinks, having left from there around 21H50/22H00.
Inquiries carried out under Rebelo
12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3277
External Inquiry
Date 10 ' 10 ' 2007
Place: Kelly's Bar, P da L
Inquiry carried out by Inspectors Rui Fernandes and Ricardo Paiva
Description and results of Inquiry
On this date at about 15.00 we went to Kelly's Bar, located in Rua da Calheta, in Praia da Luz. At the site we were received by an employee of the bar identified as L***** A**** M**** who had been on duty on the night of 3rd May 2007.
When questioned whether on the night in question she remembered the visit to the bar by witness Martin Smith and his family, she replied that she does not remember given the lapse of time between the events and because the bar is daily frequented by dozens of clients of different nationalities.
All the available documentation was requested concerning the expenses in the bar on the night of 3rd May 2007 as we were given the cash register from which photocopies were made referring to the period between 20.00 and 24.00, which is annexed to this report.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P12/12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3257.jpg (duplicate receipt from Dolphin)
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P12/12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3258.jpg (duplicate EPS slip showing transaction time)
I wonder why the family left the restaurant which also served soft and alcoholic drink to interrupt their homeward journey to go to a bar a minute away from the restaurant.
Some of the party which included children, had an early rise the following morning and there was an anxiety because Peter's "pregnant wife was somewhat ill and he was constantly attending to her,".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm#p6p1615
-
I wonder why the family left the restaurant which also served soft and alcoholic drink to interrupt their homeward journey to go to a bar a minute away from the restaurant.
Some of the party which included children, had an early rise the following morning and there was an anxiety because Peter's "pregnant wife was somewhat ill and he was constantly attending to her,".
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm#p6p1615
It's what Irish people normally do, have a nice meal and then find an Irish bar to end the night.
-
It's what Irish people normally do, have a nice meal and then find an Irish bar to end the night.
I think it's the "half hour" & "Irishman in a bar" which don't quite match up. IMO.
-
I think it's the "half hour" & "Irishman in a bar" which don't quite match up. IMO.
If you mean they didn't stay very long, that is explained because some of the group were flying home the next day. Add to that the fact that Peter's wife was pregnant and not feeling too well, they probably didn't want to overdo it.
-
If you mean they didn't stay very long, that is explained because some of the group were flying home the next day. Add to that the fact that Peter's wife was pregnant and not feeling too well, they probably didn't want to overdo it.
I suppose each to their own ... but those circumstances make the whole episode strange for me ... particularly with the early morning departure to consider.
-
I suppose each to their own ... but those circumstances make the whole episode strange for me ... particularly with the early morning departure to consider.
Lest we forget Martin Smith and his family had no axe to grind and no reason to lie. Several of you however have suggested that this was exactly what several of the family did. Can you exlain why ?
-
Lest we forget Martin Smith and his family had no axe to grind and no reason to lie. Several of you however have suggested that this was exactly what several of the family did. Can you exlain why ?
Whilst you are quite happy to suggest/believe that members of the Tapas 9 lied for a specific reason, is it beyond the realms of possibility that someone else would do likewise to protect another person?
-
Whilst you are quite happy to suggest/believe that members of the Tapas 9 lied for a specific reason, is it beyond the realms of possibility that someone else would do likewise to protect another person?
Who did Martin Smith and his family know well enough to risk being charged with perverting the course of justice for ?
Statement signed by Martin Smith... 'I hereby declare that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I will be liable to prosecution if i state in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.'
-
Who did Martin Smith and his family know well enough to risk being charged with the Portuguese equivalent of perverting the course of justice for ?
How did they risk perverting the course of justice? Can anyone prove they didn't see a man + child of the descriptions provided?
-
How did they risk perverting the course of justice? Can anyone prove they didn't see a man + child of the descriptions provided?
Are you saying the whole family didn't see a man and child ?
-
Does anyone know if the church was searched the night Madeleine disappeared?
-
Are you saying the whole family didn't see a man and child ?
Can I prove they didn't? No. Could a court prove they didn't? No. But a court would accept an independent witness saying that the man he saw was definitely not RM - the man accused of being the unidentified dark-jacketed, light-trousered, child-carrying person seen by Jane around 45m beforehand.
-
Does anyone know if the church was searched the night Madeleine disappeared?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
02-09-OUTROS APENSOS II (FILE 09) pages 01 to 14
WITH THANKS TO INES
From the Brigade for Information Analysis report:
At about 23.30 a white fair haired man aged about 30, one of the friends of the McCann group was seen by Valerie Kerr and her family when he asked them if they had seen Madeleine. They were near to the chapel. Valerie and Laura returned to their apartment, changed clothes and went to help with the search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would imagine from that snippet the church grounds would have been searched as it's not an out-of-the-way building - but not the inside as it was kept locked.
-
Can I prove they didn't? No. Could a court prove they didn't? No. But a court would accept an independent witness saying that the man he saw was definitely not RM - the man accused of being the unidentified dark-jacketed, light-trousered, child-carrying person seen by Jane around 45m beforehand?
Let me rephrase the question. Do you have any evidence, any evidence at all that the Smith sighting didn't happen exactly as the family described ?
-
Let me rephrase the question. Do you have any evidence, any evidence at all that the Smith sighting didn't happen exactly as the family described ?
The only evidence to substantiate their sighting would be a positive identification of that person, confirmed by that very person with proof he was in the area at the time with his child. What attempts were made to validate that sighting by the investigation team who were notified of it?
-
The only evidence to substantiate their sighting would be a positive identification of that person, confirmed by that very person with proof he was in the area at the time with his child. What attempts were made to validate that sighting by the investigation team who were notified of it?
Misty can we stick to the question I asked which was donyou have any evidence, any evidence at all that the Smith sighting didn't happen exactly as the family described ?
-
Misty can we stick to the question I asked which was donyou have any evidence, any evidence at all that the Smith sighting didn't happen exactly as the family described ?
I believe we have already discussed the fact the Smiths + children, including Aoife, who remained in Luz for 6 days after Madeleine went missing were so collectively upset by the occurrence that they remembered & did...absolutely nothing..... despite all the posters, police activity, searches etc etc.
-
I believe we have already discussed the fact the Smiths + children, including Aoife, who remained in Luz for 6 days after Madeleine went missing were so collectively upset by the occurrence that they remembered & did...absolutely nothing..... despite all the posters, police activity, searches etc etc.
Can I take it by your answer that you have no evidence ?
-
Can I take it by your answer that you have no evidence ?
There is no evidence available to either prove or disprove what they said they saw.
-
Can I take it by your answer that you have no evidence ?
I'm sure you can read that in their statements.
-
It seems to me the event which encouraged the Smiths to come forward was the allegation that Robert Murat might have been the culprit and by extension, the man the Smiths encountered carrying a young girl. Martin and Mary Smith knew Robert Murat after holidaying in Praia da Luz over many years, when the allegation was made they must have felt compelled to speak out.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
02-09-OUTROS APENSOS II (FILE 09) pages 01 to 14
WITH THANKS TO INES
From the Brigade for Information Analysis report:
At about 23.30 a white fair haired man aged about 30, one of the friends of the McCann group was seen by Valerie Kerr and her family when he asked them if they had seen Madeleine. They were near to the chapel. Valerie and Laura returned to their apartment, changed clothes and went to help with the search.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would imagine from that snippet the church grounds would have been searched as it's not an out-of-the-way building - but not the inside as it was kept locked.
I believe there were road works in close proximity to the church ... also logical to check out the trenches.
The initial searches were of necessity ad hoc with everyone hoping to find a wandered child.
Professional searchers keep a record of areas searched and the personnel searching, even volunteers ... so I would imagine there must be a copy somewhere, although I've not seen one.
-
There is no evidence available to either prove or disprove what they said they saw.
I would suggest not straying into libel.
-
I believe there were road works in close proximity to the church ... also logical to check out the trenches.
The initial searches were of necessity ad hoc with everyone hoping to find a wandered child.
Professional searchers keep a record of areas searched and the personnel searching, even volunteers ... so I would imagine there must be a copy somewhere, although I've not seen one.
Professional searchers? Where were they on the night of 3 May checking the construction site by the church? What is written about professional searching of the construction site in the PJ files?
NOT professional searching.
"We were divided into groups and Ewan and Rob (both employed by Mark Warner), my cousin, Miguel, and I went in a Mark Warner vehicle to search a beach zone which included a construction site. Again, we did not see any signs of the child and after a telephone we returned to the Tapas. At this point more people were at the location, including residents of Praia da Luz. A man named Matt who owned a club in the locale, seemed to now be the operational front. A big part of our group was sent to the beach; we formed a sort of human extension cord in our searches. We finally returned to the Tapas around 04H00. We were sent home at the time."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm
NOT the church construction site.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3987.jpg)
Pipe laying statements:
"During the first days/weeks of April in Rua Direita together with Largo da Republica, the different necessary infrastructures were created such as : networks for domestic drains, water supply, public lighting and telephones. These actions took place over the course of about 30 days, following others that had been implemented along Rua Helena Nascimiento Baptista."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLOS_PEREIRA.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CONSTRUCTION_WORKERS.htm
"According to his functions since 1st May, the witness began to open passages in the main roads using a mini drill, these passages were destined for the installation of electrical cables and drains for rain water respectively, in Rua Direita. When questioned, the witness replies that the passages and holes made were generally covered up on the same day they were made.
When questioned, the witness says that he remembers that on the day followie were sent home at tng the disappearance, on 4th May, various GNR officers with dogs appeared on the scene, who had come to examine the possibility that the girl might be in one of the openings. The witness says that following the events he paid more attention to the work site and never saw anything abnormal, namely the fact that the missing child could be there.
When asked, the witness says that he considers that there were no openings, that due to their size, location or to being open could present a risk for a child to fall in and disappear."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FABIO_MARQUES.htm
-
I would suggest not straying into libel.
Absolutely! and might I take this opportunity to remind members that neither will 'goading' be tolerated.
-
It seems to me the event which encouraged the Smiths to come forward was the allegation that Robert Murat might have been the culprit and by extension, the man the Smiths encountered carrying a young girl. Martin and Mary Smith knew Robert Murat after holidaying in Praia da Luz over many years, when the allegation was made they must have felt compelled to speak out.
John, I don't know why my post was removed as what I typed was accurate and not in anyway goading. I simply typed what is well known. The Smiths initially came forward when it was thought that the man they saw that night might have been Murat and Mr Smith said NO because he knew what Murat looked like. Later, seeing Gerry carrying Sean alight from the plane reminded Mr Smith of the man who he thoiught looked like GM.
I get it that supporters are enraged by Smithman and want him out of the picture, but OG have him in the picture and there he stays.
-
Wasn't it John who said the police don't take anyone's statement as a matter of fact. So if it is fair game for the police to question the truth of someone's statement can't we all do that?
-
I believe there were road works in close proximity to the church ... also logical to check out the trenches.
The initial searches were of necessity ad hoc with everyone hoping to find a wandered child.
Professional searchers keep a record of areas searched and the personnel searching, even volunteers ... so I would imagine there must be a copy somewhere, although I've not seen one.
If one thing is easily confirmed, it's the gigantic effort and commitment put into the search for Madeleine. This is how the searches were carried out;
Each search team always had an officer responsible for contact with the Lagos GNR Territorial Post, this officer would be attributed the area that the team would search and would give a photocopy of the marked area to each of the officers showing the indications about the technical manner the searches should adopt, with the formation of search lines, there had to be a visual over view of the limits of each officer's area and they were told to observe all accessible sites, where it could be possible to hide a girl or a body and the residents should be asked whether they had any useful information.
30. At the end of each search period, the individuals responsible for each group, whether they were officers or civilians, would present themselves at the Command Post, with the purpose of reporting the way in which the searches had been carried out, whether the whole of the attributed area had been searched and if any pertinent information had been gathered.
31. An organised group of volunteers, mainly English residents from the area, were also integrated into the searches, who also had a Command Post contact member, this group was attributed sectors that had been previously searched by GNR officers.
These are the people involved;
6 officers with dogs
20 officers from Lagos
10 officers from the Portimao Territorial Division
10 officers from the Silves Territorial Division
10 officers from Albufeira
15 officers from the Portimao Command Group
4 officers from the Faro TG
6 officers from GIPS
5 officers from Portimao Prosecutors Division
27. Others who took part in the searches were officers from the Lagos Public Security Police, the Maritime Police within their area of responsibility (maritime public domain), officers from Municipal Civil Protection, volunteer firemen from Lagos and from the Portuguese Red Cross.
28. Six officers from the Algarve Canine Rescue team (ECRA) - a legally constituted association - joined in the searches by volunteering their help at the P da L Operations Post.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
-
Wasn't it John who said the police don't take anyone's statement as a matter of fact. So if it is fair game for the police to question the truth of someone's statement can't we all do that?
Yes indeed Rob. that is not the complaint here. The complaint is two fold:
1 when anyone questions the statements, with anomalies, of the McCanns they are charged and found guilty of goading and or trolling , members were abused by being called mentally ill or unintellegent. This is unacceptable.
2.If the McCann supporters can chuck accusations about witnesses who do not show the McCanns in a good light or verify their story it's free for all attack with no reprimands at all. This is also unacceptable.
I do not know what the Smiths saw, who they saw, only they know that. As far as I am aware they are independent witnesses and should quite rightly be heard. AND since the OG seem to want to have this Smithman in the picture who are these people who would deny a chance to at least eliminate this person.
-
John, I don't know why my post was removed as what I typed was accurate and not in anyway goading. I simply typed what is well known. It was seeing Gerry carrying Sean alight from the plane that made Mr Smith recall seeing someone carry a child on that night. It was then noted that They were asked if they thought it might be Murat and he said NO because he knew what Murat looked like.
I get it that supporters are enraged by Smithman and want him out of the picture, but OG have him in the picture and there he stays.
Your post is factually incorrect. The Smith family had come forward to report their sighting long before Gerry descended the plane steps carrying one of the twins. In their original statements, the three witnesses all said that they would not recognise the man again but MS did say it was definitely not Murat. Only when MS decided 4 months later that he was 60/80% sure the man he saw was actually GM did Amaral become really interested.
IMO you have totally overlooked the relevance of Smithman to the McCanns' abduction claims. For 6 years, the focus was on Tannerman as the potential abductor, the sighting of whom was given little credence by Team Amaral & Team Halligan. When the Met announced they had "almost certainly" ruled out Tannerman as the self-confessed Crecheman, the effect was two-fold. First, the Met validated Jane's sighting. Second, and more important, it shifted the focus onto the other unidentified male carrying a child seen in Luz that night. For as long as that man remains unidentified there is still a potential abductor out there - which is more than a little beneficial to the McCann cause. So, far from wanting him removed, Smithman's lack of identification would/will always be a suitable "reasonable doubt" defence for the McCanns in the absence of any other additional evidence in the same way anyone identified as Tannerman could have used the same defence if charged.
-
I would suggest not straying into libel.
I think I did a pretty good job of not libelling, given the nature of the questions being addressed to me.
-
If one thing is easily confirmed, it's the gigantic effort and commitment put into the search for Madeleine. This is how the searches were carried out;
Each search team always had an officer responsible for contact with the Lagos GNR Territorial Post, this officer would be attributed the area that the team would search and would give a photocopy of the marked area to each of the officers showing the indications about the technical manner the searches should adopt, with the formation of search lines, there had to be a visual over view of the limits of each officer's area and they were told to observe all accessible sites, where it could be possible to hide a girl or a body and the residents should be asked whether they had any useful information.
30. At the end of each search period, the individuals responsible for each group, whether they were officers or civilians, would present themselves at the Command Post, with the purpose of reporting the way in which the searches had been carried out, whether the whole of the attributed area had been searched and if any pertinent information had been gathered.
31. An organised group of volunteers, mainly English residents from the area, were also integrated into the searches, who also had a Command Post contact member, this group was attributed sectors that had been previously searched by GNR officers.
These are the people involved;
6 officers with dogs
20 officers from Lagos
10 officers from the Portimao Territorial Division
10 officers from the Silves Territorial Division
10 officers from Albufeira
15 officers from the Portimao Command Group
4 officers from the Faro TG
6 officers from GIPS
5 officers from Portimao Prosecutors Division
27. Others who took part in the searches were officers from the Lagos Public Security Police, the Maritime Police within their area of responsibility (maritime public domain), officers from Municipal Civil Protection, volunteer firemen from Lagos and from the Portuguese Red Cross.
28. Six officers from the Algarve Canine Rescue team (ECRA) - a legally constituted association - joined in the searches by volunteering their help at the P da L Operations Post.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm
Thank you G great post, and flies in the eyes of'' no one is searching for Maddie' emanating from the mouths of the 'grieving' family.
The people who did search for long hours out of care and compassion for a child were swiped aside to gain sympathy of a "lone couple left looking for their daughter while no one else cared". According to the 'family back home' on TV- IMO this is disgusting.
-
Your post is factually incorrect. The Smith family had come forward to report their sighting long before Gerry descended the plane steps carrying one of the twins. In their original statements, the three witnesses all said that they would not recognise the man again but MS did say it was definitely not Murat. Only when MS decided 4 months later that he was 60/80% sure the man he saw was actually GM did Amaral become really interested.
IMO you have totally overlooked the relevance of Smithman to the McCanns' abduction claims. For 6 years, the focus was on Tannerman as the potential abductor, the sighting of whom was given little credence by Team Amaral & Team Halligan. When the Met announced they had "almost certainly" ruled out Tannerman as the self-confessed Crecheman, the effect was two-fold. First, the Met validated Jane's sighting. Second, and more important, it shifted the focus onto the other unidentified male carrying a child seen in Luz that night. For as long as that man remains unidentified there is still a potential abductor out there - which is more than a little beneficial to the McCann cause. So, far from wanting him removed, Smithman's lack of identification would/will always be a suitable "reasonable doubt" defence for the McCanns in the absence of any other additional evidence in the same way anyone identified as Tannerman could have used the same defence if charged.
Who says Smithman is unidentified? Is he still n the SY website ?
-
Thank you G great post, and flies in the eyes of'' no one is searching for Maddie' emanating from the mouths of the 'grieving' family.
The people who did search for long hours out of care and compassion for a child were swiped aside to gain sympathy of a "lone couple left looking for their daughter while no one else cared". According to the 'family back home' on TV- IMO this is disgusting.
I think they did exactly the right thing. Whether Madeleine wandered or was taken, the local area had to be thoroughly searched. Kate dismissed the searches because she didn't believe her daughter had wandered. Indeed, she found them 'insulting to their intelligence' because;
there was no doubt in our minds that Madeleine had not left that apartment of her own accord [Madeleine]
She seems to have missed the possibility that abusers have been known to abandon their victims close to where they found them.
-
I think they did exactly the right thing. Whether Madeleine wandered or was taken, the local area had to be thoroughly searched. Kate dismissed the searches because she didn't believe her daughter had wandered. Indeed, she found them 'insulting to their intelligence' because;
there was no doubt in our minds that Madeleine had not left that apartment of her own accord [Madeleine]
She seems to have missed the possibility that abusers have been known to abandon their victims close to where they found them.
The McCanns had underestimated the potential of her wandering via the front door and someone closing the front door after she left.
-
Who says Smithman is unidentified? Is he still n the SY website ?
No he's not. Not a single image of any unidentified people of interest are now featured. However, it is important to realise that, without OG, the Smith sighting would never have been investigated further but merely remained on file as 60/80% probably GM & a discredited Jane Tanner. And Crecheman's completed questionnaire & identity would have remained buried. Amaral's thesis could never have been proven wrong in those circumstances.
IMO.
-
I think I did a pretty good job of not libelling, given the nature of the questions being addressed to me.
Which is why nothing was removed or penalties applied. It was getting close, hence the warning.
-
Wasn't it John who said the police don't take anyone's statement as a matter of fact. So if it is fair game for the police to question the truth of someone's statement can't we all do that?
Independent witnesses or police personnel with no axe to grind have more protection than those more closely aligned to the main players.
-
No he's not. Not a single image of any unidentified people of interest are now featured. However, it is important to realise that, without OG, the Smith sighting would never have been investigated further but merely remained on file as 60/80% probably GM & a discredited Jane Tanner. And Crecheman's completed questionnaire & identity would have remained buried. Amaral's thesis could never have been proven wrong in those circumstances.
IMO.
So you agree Smithman could have been identified?
-
Independent witnesses or police personnel with no axe to grind have more protection than those more closely aligned to the main players.
Closely aligned? I don't understand that insinuation.
-
Closely aligned? I don't understand that insinuation.
It’s not an insinuation, it’s a statement. The T9 are not independent witnesses.
-
He could have been. If he has been identified, then quite clearly he was not Gerry.
Equally the sighting could have been discredited in the same fashion Jane's was.
Was Tanner's sighting discredited then ?
-
Let me rephrase the question. Do you have any evidence, any evidence at all that the Smith sighting didn't happen exactly as the family described ?
Well there are the discrepancies between the two male Smiths times of going to Kellys and the time on the receipt from leaving The Dolphin Restaurant
This discrepenciy was a massive half an hour. Aoifes time of leaving agreed with the time on the receipt
So the two men were half an hour out with the receipt time, whilst Aoife agreed with it.
Half an hour difference in any of the Tapas Group timings would have them hung, drawn and quartered.
-
Misty can we stick to the question I asked which was donyou have any evidence, any evidence at all that the Smith sighting didn't happen exactly as the family described ?
See above answer
Quite major time differences,, which The Mccanns would not be allowed to get away with !!!.
-
Can I take it by your answer that you have no evidence ?
Given my points about time variances and also mistys posts above, there are pointers Faith, more than one, but I doubt that any could be taken as evidence.
-
Professional searchers? Where were they on the night of 3 May checking the construction site by the church? What is written about professional searching of the construction site in the PJ files?
NOT professional searching.
"We were divided into groups and Ewan and Rob (both employed by Mark Warner), my cousin, Miguel, and I went in a Mark Warner vehicle to search a beach zone which included a construction site. Again, we did not see any signs of the child and after a telephone we returned to the Tapas. At this point more people were at the location, including residents of Praia da Luz. A man named Matt who owned a club in the locale, seemed to now be the operational front. A big part of our group was sent to the beach; we formed a sort of human extension cord in our searches. We finally returned to the Tapas around 04H00. We were sent home at the time."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm
NOT the church construction site.
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3987.jpg)
Pipe laying statements:
"During the first days/weeks of April in Rua Direita together with Largo da Republica, the different necessary infrastructures were created such as : networks for domestic drains, water supply, public lighting and telephones. These actions took place over the course of about 30 days, following others that had been implemented along Rua Helena Nascimiento Baptista."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLOS_PEREIRA.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CONSTRUCTION_WORKERS.htm
"According to his functions since 1st May, the witness began to open passages in the main roads using a mini drill, these passages were destined for the installation of electrical cables and drains for rain water respectively, in Rua Direita. When questioned, the witness replies that the passages and holes made were generally covered up on the same day they were made.
When questioned, the witness says that he remembers that on the day followie were sent home at tng the disappearance, on 4th May, various GNR officers with dogs appeared on the scene, who had come to examine the possibility that the girl might be in one of the openings. The witness says that following the events he paid more attention to the work site and never saw anything abnormal, namely the fact that the missing child could be there.
When asked, the witness says that he considers that there were no openings, that due to their size, location or to being open could present a risk for a child to fall in and disappear."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FABIO_MARQUES.htm
Someone asked if these holes were close to the church.
Assuming that the plans above respond to the pertinent holes, are accurate, and that I am understanding them correctly ( I think I am) then the lower dug up area [Area One] is approximately 100 meters crow flies from the church
-
It’s not an insinuation, it’s a statement. The T9 are not independent witnesses.
I understand what you mean now thanks. I thought that was a moderator comment.
-
Someone asked if these holes were close to the church.
Assuming that the plans above respond to the pertinent holes, are accurate, and that I am understanding them correctly ( I think I am) then the lower dug up area [Area One] is approximately 100 meters crow flies from the church
A construction site was behind the church.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/church/6.%20Large%20hole%20just%20after%20the%20church%20wall.jpg)
-
A construction site was behind the church.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/church/6.%20Large%20hole%20just%20after%20the%20church%20wall.jpg)
Ah, then that isn't shown on your plan / diagram. The nearest spot on your plan is 100 metres away
When I visited last, I think that was in 2014, pavements and kerbs were being built / laid behind the church and the area was used as a small (?temporary?) car park. As we arrived Kate Mccann was getting into her car. I didn't see her, but hubby did.
When we visited a couple of years before that, i seem to remember just a rough stoney sandy area. Fairly flat, but I didn't take too much notice.
Mybe Pdl is laid back and took seven years to finally finish off the work? dunno, but it seems a bit too long to me.
-
Ah, then that isn't shown on your plan / diagram. The nearest spot on your plan is 100 metres away
When I visited last, I think that was in 2014, pavements and kerbs were being built / laid behind the church and the area was used as a small (?temporary?) car park. As we arrived Kate Mccann was getting into her car. I didn't see her, but hubby did.
When we visited a couple of years before that, i seem to remember just a rough stoney sandy area. Fairly flat, but I didn't take too much notice.
Mybe Pdl is laid back and took seven years to finally finish off the work? dunno, but it seems a bit too long to me.
That's not my plan Sadie. It's from the PJ files. The construction site was not in the files and you are correct, it is now a car park.
-
John, I don't know why my post was removed as what I typed was accurate and not in anyway goading. I simply typed what is well known. It was seeing Gerry carrying Sean alight from the plane that made Mr Smith recall seeing someone carry a child on that night. It was then noted that They were asked if they thought it might be Murat and he said NO because he knew what Murat looked like.
I get it that supporters are enraged by Smithman and want him out of the picture, but OG have him in the picture and there he stays.
Seeing Gerry on the TV News carrying Sean down the steps of the aircraft certainly reminded Martin Smith of the man they had encountered carrying a child on the night that Madeleine disappeared but as has already been pointed out, they had already considered whether that sighting was imporatnt or not when they heard that Robert Murat was in the frame as Tannerman and by extension possibly Smithman.
The Smiths had two involvements with the police, initially to inform them that the man they had seen was definately not Robert Murat and much later on to assert their suspicion that the man may have been GMcC.
-
Misty can we stick to the question I asked which was donyou have any evidence, any evidence at all that the Smith sighting didn't happen exactly as the family described ?
There is no reason to believe the Smiths were anything but genuine in all their associations with the case.
-
Wasn't it John who said the police don't take anyone's statement as a matter of fact. So if it is fair game for the police to question the truth of someone's statement can't we all do that?
A witness statement is only a written testimony Rob, it might be true or false.
-
Seeing Gerry on the TV News carrying Sean down the steps of the aircraft certainly reminded Martin Smith of the man they had encountered carrying a child on the night that Madeleine disappeared but as has already been pointed out, they had already considered whether that sighting was imporatnt or not when they heard that Robert Murat was in the frame as Tannerman and by extension possibly Smithman.
The Smiths had two involvements with the police, initially to inform them that the man they had seen was definately not Robert Murat and much later on to assert their suspicion that the man may have been GMcC.
In his statement taken by the PJ on 26th May 2007 Martin Smith affirmed that the individual he saw was not Robert Murat.
In a statement to an Garda Síochána on 20th September, 2007 Martin Smith identified Gerry McCann from a news broadcast ten days before, as the man he saw carrying a child on 3rd May 2007.
The first statement 'cleared' Murat.
The second statement 'implicated' McCann.
-
A witness statement is only a written testimony Rob, it might be true or false.
Time after time the statements given by Kate and Gerry McCann are called into question.
Similarly the statements made by their friends are called into question. None more so than Jane Tanner's.
There is independent confirmation of their presence where they said they were; when they said they were there.
(receipt, fellow diners, waiters, Jez Wilkins)
There is no independent corroboration that the Smith family were where they were when they said they were.
There is nothing from the Dolphin where they ate.
The till roll from Kelly's is indeterminate and could be anyone's not necessarily the Smiths'.
The CCTV footage at Estrela da Luz which might at least have provided a return time from which the time of their encounter could have been extrapolated - had been erased.
Therefore if discussing witness statements has been and is tolerated is there any good reason those we have access to made by the three members of the Smith family should be exempt from scrutiny?
-
A witness statement is only a written testimony Rob, it might be true or false.
But is it right I am not allowed to say "IMO I think it is false"? We should be allowed to have an opinion on such matters.
-
Time after time the statements given by Kate and Gerry McCann are called into question.
Similarly the statements made by their friends are called into question. None more so than Jane Tanner's.
There is independent confirmation of their presence where they said they were; when they said they were there.
(receipt, fellow diners, waiters, Jez Wilkins)
There is no independent corroboration that the Smith family were where they were when they said they were.
There is nothing from the Dolphin where they ate.
The till roll from Kelly's is indeterminate and could be anyone's not necessarily the Smiths'.
The CCTV footage at Estrela da Luz which might at least have provided a return time from which the time of their encounter could have been extrapolated - had been erased.
Therefore if discussing witness statements has been and is tolerated is there any good reason those we have access to made by the three members of the Smith family should be exempt from scrutiny?
I think it's fine to point out discrepancies in statements when people contradict themselves or each other. The twin's crying being changed to Madeleine and Sean crying, for example. That's based on written evidence.
There may be no evidence placing the Smiths where they said they were, but there's no evidence suggesting they weren't there either. Suggesting that they weren't is akin to calling a 12 year old girl a liar without any evidence to support the accusation imo.
-
I understand what you mean now thanks. I thought that was a moderator comment.
It was.
-
It was.
No hope for me sorry, I'm lost.
-
Time after time the statements given by Kate and Gerry McCann are called into question.
Similarly the statements made by their friends are called into question. None more so than Jane Tanner's.
There is independent confirmation of their presence where they said they were; when they said they were there.
(receipt, fellow diners, waiters, Jez Wilkins)
There is no independent corroboration that the Smith family were where they were when they said they were.
There is nothing from the Dolphin where they ate.
The till roll from Kelly's is indeterminate and could be anyone's not necessarily the Smiths'.
The CCTV footage at Estrela da Luz which might at least have provided a return time from which the time of their encounter could have been extrapolated - had been erased.
Therefore if discussing witness statements has been and is tolerated is there any good reason those we have access to made by the three members of the Smith family should be exempt from scrutiny?
The Smiths had no reason to lie. The same cannot be said of the McCanns and their friends.
This is from the transcript of Martin Smith's first interview.
'— Questioned, says that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was in a deep sleep.
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.'
It is obvious that MS was responding to a line of questioning and did not offer up the information freely. Given the context of Murat having just been made an arguido it would have been strange if MS hadn't been asked about him.
To suggest that the Smith family came forward to clear Murat is disingenuous to say the least.
-
The Smiths had no reason to lie. The same cannot be said of the McCanns and their friends.
This is from the transcript of Martin Smith's first interview.
'— Questioned, says that the individual did not speak nor did the child as she was in a deep sleep.
— States that it is not possible for him to recognise the individual in person or by photograph.
— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.'
It is obvious that MS was responding to a line of questioning and did not offer up the information freely. Given the context of Murat having just been made an arguido it would have been strange if MS hadn't been asked about him.
To suggest that the Smith family came forward to clear Murat is disingenuous to say the least.
In your opinion. I have never yet read a credible reason why any of the friends of the McCanns would decide to lie to the police.
It seems to me that if M. Smith was absolutely certain the man he saw was not Robert Murat - he would be far more inclined to 'get involved' with the PJ with that 'definite' information than he would be with a sighting which for all he knew could have nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance.
I have always thought that M.Smith was keen not to have his family dragged into the media frenzy etc etc which surrounded this case. Even in Kate's book - she doesn't describe his family by name - which IMO was probably at his request.
I also think there may be potential witnesses around who decided it was best 'not to get involved' with the PJ - in line with Mrs. Murat's thinking on that subject. It could even be that Smithman came into that category.
AIMHO
-
Kate did try to make out that Tannerman and Smithman were the same person in 2011 (discounting suppressed 2008 efits, hair length, carrying style, times etc.) and SY know they aren't - fancy that 8(>((
-
Kate did try to make out that Tannerman and Smithman were the same person in 2011 (discounting suppressed 2008 efits, hair length, carrying style, times etc.) and SY know they aren't - fancy that 8(>((
She listed the similarities between two descriptions given by people who did not know oneanother - especially their jointly held opinion that the man did not give the impression of being a tourist.
That would seem to be a perfectly normal thing for anyone to do in the circumstances imo.
IMO
-
In your opinion. I have never yet read a credible reason why any of the friends of the McCanns would decide to lie to the police.
It seems to me that if M. Smith was absolutely certain the man he saw was not Robert Murat - he would be far more inclined to 'get involved' with the PJ with that 'definite' information than he would be with a sighting which for all he knew could have nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance.
I have always thought that M.Smith was keen not to have his family dragged into the media frenzy etc etc which surrounded this case. Even in Kate's book - she doesn't describe his family by name - which IMO was probably at his request.
I also think there may be potential witnesses around who decided it was best 'not to get involved' with the PJ - in line with Mrs. Murat's thinking on that subject. It could even be that Smithman came into that category.
AIMHO
As I recall there are accounts of Mr Smith becoming very "humpy" with PIs and the press even unto the point of his solicitors firing off high calibre missives.
-
She listed the similarities between two descriptions given by people who did not know oneanother - especially their jointly held opinion that the man did not give the impression of being a tourist.
That would seem to be a perfectly normal thing for anyone to do in the circumstances imo.
IMO
Releasing suspect efits of a man seen carrying a Madeleine clone would be the normal thing to do. Suppressing suspect efits from the public is certainly not normal behaviour when posh spice and other nonsense efits are later released by their investigators. As we know Oakley were not allowed to speak about the Smithman file. You will find out why it's so important.
-
Out of curiosity, looking at the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman given by Jane Tanner and the three members of the Smith family, are there significant differences in the way the man or the child were described? Anyone want to provide two columns detailing the characteristics of the sightings.
If someone has the time for this please start a new topic.
-
Releasing suspect efits of a man seen carrying a Madeleine clone would be the normal thing to do. Suppressing suspect efits from the public is certainly not normal behaviour when posh spice and other nonsense efits are later released by their investigators As we know Oakley were not allowed to speak about the Smithman file. You will find out why it's so important.
In your opinion.
IMO - it's not unusual for certain employment contracts to include a 'non-disclosure' requirement in order to prevent ex employees from taking advantage of their former positions by selling their stories to the press etc.
In this case it could be that unauthorised disclosure could damage ongoing investigations.
IMO
-
Out of curiosity, looking at the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman given by Jane Tanner and the three members of the Smith family, are there significant differences in the way the man or the child were described? Anyone want to provide two columns detailing the characteristics of the sightings.
If someone has the time for this please start a new topic.
Kate lists the similarities on pages 371/2 of her book - in the 'Key Sightings' chapter.
Sorry haven't got time to type them out at the moment.
-
Out of curiosity, looking at the descriptions of Tannerman and Smithman given by Jane Tanner and the three members of the Smith family, are there significant differences in the way the man or the child were described? Anyone want to provide two columns detailing the characteristics of the sightings.
If someone has the time for this please start a new topic.
The way they dressed were similar e.g. dark jacket, beige trousers.
Obvious differences:
Tannerman: Long hair
Smithman: Short hair
Around 45 minutes between sightings
Carrying styles as follows:
Tannerman carrying style - crecheman's clothes were seen under an orange light by Jane Tanner
(http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/f/Tannerman.jpg)
2008 efits released by SY in 2013 - not seen in 2011 Madeleine leaving no stone unturned book
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02700/e-fits_2700898b.jpg)
Smithman carrying style
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/the-parents-of-missing-toddler-madeleine-mccann-kate-and-gerry-carry-picture-id76607142)
-
The way they dressed were similar e.g. dark jacket, beige trousers.
Obvious differences:
Tannerman: Long thick hair
Smithman: Short hair
Around 45 minutes between the sightings
Carrying styles as follows:
Tannerman carrying style - crecheman's clothes were seen under an orange light by Jane Tanner
(http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/f/Tannerman.jpg)
2008 efits released by SY in 2013 - not seen in 2011 Madeleine leaving no stone unturned book
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02700/e-fits_2700898b.jpg)
Smithman carrying style
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/the-parents-of-missing-toddler-madeleine-mccann-kate-and-gerry-carry-picture-id76607142)
IMO discrepancies re the hair are minimal in the scheme of things and still qualify as 'similarities' It would be different if one was thin on top and the other one had hair down his back - or if one was blonde and the other one dark - or if one had a hat on and the other one didn't. Those are what I would call discrepancies which could not be ignored in this particular context.
IMO
-
In your opinion.
IMO - it's not unusual for certain employment contracts to include a 'non-disclosure' requirement in order to prevent ex employees from taking advantage of their former positions by selling their stories to the press etc.
In this case it could be that unauthorised disclosure could damage ongoing investigations.
IMO
In this case it could well have changed how people perceived the search for an abductor.
IMO
-
In this case it could well have changed how people perceived the search for an abductor.
IMO
Sorry - you've lost me G. Care to elaborate?
-
Sorry - you've lost me G. Care to elaborate?
People question why the e-fits remained out of public view for so long.
-
IMO discrepancies re the hair are minimal in the scheme of things and still qualify as 'similarities' It would be different if one was thin on top and the other one had hair down his back - or if one was blonde and the other one dark - or if one had a hat on and the other one didn't. Those are what I would call discrepancies which could not be ignored in this particular context.
IMO
None of the Smiths said his hair was long - Jane Tanner is the only one who said it so that suggests she saw a different man. SY say YES she did he is found. Unless you believe Jane is the only one who got it wrong about his hair because that has to be the reason for it to be the same guy?
-
Sorry - you've lost me G. Care to elaborate?
I think there's quite a difference between;
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/01/21/mccann10b.jpg?w=645&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=e2698475bd372234aed02165822f5ff1)
and;
(http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2367954.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/Madeleine-McCann-main.jpg)
-
Kate did try to make out that Tannerman and Smithman were the same person in 2011 (discounting suppressed 2008 efits, hair length, carrying style, times etc.) and SY know they aren't - fancy that 8(>((
Oh do they?
Cite please that SY KNOW that Tannerman and Smithman aren't the same man
-
Releasing suspect efits of a man seen carrying a Madeleine clone would be the normal thing to do. Suppressing suspect efits from the public is certainly not normal behaviour when posh spice and other nonsense efits are later released by their investigators. As we know Oakley were not allowed to speak about the Smithman file. You will find out why it's so important.
Wasn't it against The Law to interfere with the Portuguese process of Law whilst the case was still in progress?
Were they allowed to release the efits ? Anyone know ?
-
Wasn't it against The Law to interfere with the Portuguese process of Law whilst the case was still in progress?
Were they allowed to release the efits ? Anyone know ?
A countries law would only apply to its citizens and people within its borders surely.
-
Wasn't it against The Law to interfere with the Portuguese process of Law whilst the case was still in progress?
Were they allowed to release the efits ? Anyone know ?
Of course they could release the efits if they wanted when their investigators produced them. Release the efits and try to find Smithman and prove Amaral is wrong/crazy but that didn't happen - the following year they released posh spice instead @)(++(*. There has to be a very good reason why you wouldn't urgently release efits of somebody that nine eye witnesses believe was carrying your daughter on the night she disappeared. The McCanns have never answered it &%+((£
-
Of course they could release the efits if they wanted when their investigators produced them. Release the efits and try to find Smithman and prove Amaral is wrong/crazy but that didn't happen - the following year they released posh spice instead @)(++(*. There has to be a very good reason why you wouldn't release efits of somebody that nine eye witnesses believe was carrying your daughter on the night she disappeared. The McCanns have never answered it &%+((£
Do you think the McCanns/their PI's were in a position to accuse the Smiths of fabricating the efits?
-
The McCanns urgently need to find that man - he could have their daughter. Nothing else matters! We want Madeleine home - we will leave no stone unturned to find her........You think? You find Smithman and prove Amaral wrong as an added bonus 8(0(* The sighting is very credible. You don't bring young children into it when Smithman was the only one seen on their journey back. That's why it stood out to all i.e. they are telling the truth. The sighting area was dark as proven in reconstruction. A 12 year old got the times right. The two adults didn't. Of course it was a set up masterminded by the 12 year old child LOL.
-
The McCanns urgently need to find that man - he could have their daughter. Nothing else matters! We want Madeleine home - we will leave no stone unturned to find her........You think? You find Smithman and prove Amaral wrong as an added bonus 8(0(* The sighting is very credible. You don't bring young children into it when Smithman was the only one seen on their journey back. That's why it stood out to all i.e. they are telling the truth. The sighting area was dark as proven in reconstruction. A 12 year old got the times right. The two adults didn't. Of course it was a set up masterminded by the 12 year old child LOL.
The McCanns knew nothing about that man at the time when locating him might have been more of a possibility: the Smith's statements were the property of the Policia Judiciaria who had the responsibility of finding him when they were told about him: exactly what steps did they take to locate him?
-
I think there's quite a difference between;
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2008/01/21/mccann10b.jpg?w=645&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=e2698475bd372234aed02165822f5ff1)
and;
(http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article2367954.ece/ALTERNATES/s810/Madeleine-McCann-main.jpg)
You didn't think the bloke with the long hair and moustache was supposed to be Smithman did you?
-
You didn't think the bloke with the long hair and moustache was supposed to be Smithman did you?
'The bloke with the long hair' was seen by Gail Cooper and, we are told, Tanner agreed that there was a likeness to Tannerman.
'The bloke' was seen weeks before the McCanns even arrived in Portugal and there is absolutely nothing to connect him to Madeleine's disappearance.
-
No wonder Henri Exton thought Tanner was an unreliable witness.
Yet the Smiths with their 50-60% certainty is great!
-
Yet the Smiths with their 50-60% certainty is great!
Just one Smith;
I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
-
Who is the source of the comments beside the sketch, please?
The power point attached was completed by the McCanns
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/POWERPOINT.htm
-
Straight from the horse's mouth one might say.
-
Page 3965 is an eye opener.
-
The power point attached was completed by the McCanns
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/POWERPOINT.htm
No wonder Amaral thought the McCanns were leading the Brtish police by the noses.
-
Okay. That's enough now. I will be deleting shortly.
-
The power point attached was completed by the McCanns
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/POWERPOINT.htm
And what does this page say?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_3974.jpg
-
And what does this page say?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15_VOLUME-XVa_Page_3974.jpg
Look! Maroon shirt????
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P15/15VOLUMEXVa_Page_3990.jpg)
-
Look! Maroon shirt????
Like the one Crecheman wore? She probably mistook his jacket for a shirt.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/15/article-2460669-18BF360500000578-24_306x619.jpg)
-
Like the one Crecheman wore? She probably mistook his jacket for a shirt.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/10/15/article-2460669-18BF360500000578-24_306x619.jpg)
Jane did not describe a shirt of any colour.
In my opinion, Crecheman is too tall & slim to be Tannerman. Observe the "derriere" definition on the Tannerman image compared to Crecheman.
-
Jane did not describe a shirt of any colour.
Crecheman is too tall & slim to be Tannerman. Observe the "derriere" definition on the Tannerman image compared to Crecheman.
IMO.
Where is that Misty?
-
Jane did not describe a shirt of any colour.
In my opinion, Crecheman is too tall & slim to be Tannerman. Observe the "derriere" definition on the Tannerman image compared to Crecheman.
You do know that Tannerman is a drawing and not a photograph?
-
Jane did not describe a shirt of any colour.
In my opinion, Crecheman is too tall & slim to be Tannerman. Observe the "derriere" definition on the Tannerman image compared to Crecheman.
Who did then?
-
Who did then?
Looks like the ever-reliable Sun Newspaper
http://www.anorak.co.uk/177174/madeleine-mccann/madeleine-mccann-jane-tanners-efit-a-spanish-angel-and-wearing-pink-pyjamas.html/
THE SUN front page: “PICTURE SENSATION. He took Maddie – MAN SEEN BY McCANNS’ PAL ON FATEFUL NIGHT”
A drawing of a man. The caption: “Hunted…a drawing of man with child in his arms as seen by Jane Tanner”
Page 13: “MADDIE IN ARMS OF SNATCHER. Pyjamas ‘prove it is her’” – The man is 5ft 6. He is 5ft 10 in the Express. He is “slim”. The girl is wearing pink and white pyjamas. The man is in a maroon shirt, camel coloured trousers and black or brown shoes
Says Clarence Mitchell: “We hope this will go a long was to proving the independent eyewitness account that she was taken by someone and the police’s focus on Kate and Gerry as potential suspects is wrong”. See drawing of a man seen by McCanns’ friend
And: “We believe it does show Madeleine in his arms. The description of the pyjamas is accurate enough to believe that is the case.” The McCanns’ friend sees the girl wearing pyjamas like those worn by Madeleine, whom she knows
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a member of Not Bennett's forum you may be able to access the full Sun article by Lazzeri over there, but I do not subscribe to it.
-
Looks like the ever-reliable Sun Newspaper
http://www.anorak.co.uk/177174/madeleine-mccann/madeleine-mccann-jane-tanners-efit-a-spanish-angel-and-wearing-pink-pyjamas.html/
THE SUN front page: “PICTURE SENSATION. He took Maddie – MAN SEEN BY McCANNS’ PAL ON FATEFUL NIGHT”
A drawing of a man. The caption: “Hunted…a drawing of man with child in his arms as seen by Jane Tanner”
Page 13: “MADDIE IN ARMS OF SNATCHER. Pyjamas ‘prove it is her’” – The man is 5ft 6. He is 5ft 10 in the Express. He is “slim”. The girl is wearing pink and white pyjamas. The man is in a maroon shirt, camel coloured trousers and black or brown shoes
Says Clarence Mitchell: “We hope this will go a long was to proving the independent eyewitness account that she was taken by someone and the police’s focus on Kate and Gerry as potential suspects is wrong”. See drawing of a man seen by McCanns’ friend
And: “We believe it does show Madeleine in his arms. The description of the pyjamas is accurate enough to believe that is the case.” The McCanns’ friend sees the girl wearing pyjamas like those worn by Madeleine, whom she knows
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you are a member of Not Bennett's forum you may be able to access the full Sun article by Lazzeri over there, but I do not subscribe to it.
I know the Anorak article is from 10 years ago, but the comments make for interesting reading, even now.
-
Adrian Gatton
@AdrianGatton
19m19 minutes ago
Detectives from Operation Grange have the "Final Report". Some say it served as a roadmap for the investigation. One question though: which edition of the report did Op Grange receive and did they receive the draft editions also? #Halligen #McCann #OperationOmega
-
Adrian Gatton
@AdrianGatton
19m19 minutes ago
Detectives from Operation Grange have the "Final Report". Some say it served as a roadmap for the investigation. One question though: which edition of the report did Op Grange receive and did they receive the draft editions also? #Halligen #McCann #OperationOmega
Are they going to publish findings based on this unknown version of the report? where did you read this Pathy?
-
https://twitter.com/AdrianGatton/
Adrian Gatton
@AdrianGatton
30m30 minutes ago
Hope that provides a bit of clarity. Halligen did the deal through his company, got paid through his company, but others did the serious work. In short: Halligen was a "conman" who took that money, but the work WAS done (eg see the Smith efits adopted by Op Grange).
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUEOlqiX4AAqhG0.jpg)
-
Adrian Gatton
@AdrianGatton
2h2 hours ago
Meanwhile Halligen undermined the real op by spending the money paid to find Madeleine on his 'high roller' lifestyle, eg he didn't pay the team doing the real on-the-ground ops to find Madeleine, the ex-MI5 A4 surveillance team ... (emphasis: EX-MI5)
More
But Halligen was not in charge of the investigation to find Madeleine McCann. Henri Exton was in charge and his own team did 'collection' (gathering intel), witness and source interviews, analysis, tasking, targeting, surveillance, covert, efits, report writing, etc ...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUENAfYWkAAdqzZ.jpg)
-
Do you think the Express might publish the report or at least selected highlight?
-
Do you think the Express might publish the report or at least selected highlight?
We know that Exton thought Jane's sighting had little credibility and advised the Fund to concentrate on Smithman, an opinion OG seem to have followed. We were also told that the Final Oakley report was scathing of the McCanns. It will be interesting what OG make of that opinion.
-
Yes, but it would be even better to be able to read it for ourselves ?{)(**
-
Yes, but it would be even better to be able to read it for ourselves ?{)(**
You never know Jassi 8(0(*