The investigation into the Smith family's sighting

[misty]

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?

[Brietta]

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

[Brietta]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

[faithlilly]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[John]

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.

[misty]

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.

[misty]

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?

[faithlilly]

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.

[Robittybob1]

Why is it hard to file over 500 questionaires?

Finding a rubbish bin big enough.

[misty]

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?

[faithlilly]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[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.

So how do you investigate a sighting from the testimony of an unreliable witness?