The investigation into the Smith family's sighting

[stephen25000]

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 ?

[misty]

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!).

[jassi]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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." 

[stephen25000]

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.

[misty]

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?

[jassi]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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?

[misty]

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.

[misty]

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?

[stephen25000]

....or non at all.

[Robittybob1]

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?