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.htmPart 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?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------