The investigation into the Smith family's sighting

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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".

[G-Unit]

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

[Robittybob1]

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?

[Brietta]

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.

[G-Unit]

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?

[Robittybob1]

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?

[misty]

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?

[misty]

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.

[G-Unit]

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

[Robittybob1]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[misty]

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.

[Alice Purjorick]

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”