The investigation into the Smith family's sighting

[misty]

 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

[stephen25000]

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 ?

[misty]

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?

[Brietta]

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.

[stephen25000]

I have amended the last sentence to include the word potential. Is that sufficient?

Yes Misty, that's fine.

[misty]

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.

[stephen25000]

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 ?

[misty]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[misty]

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?

[stephen25000]

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.

[misty]

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.

[stephen25000]

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 ?

[misty]

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.

[G-Unit]

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?