The investigation into the Smith family's sighting

[slartibartfast]

There is no evidence available to either prove or disprove what they said they saw.

I would suggest not straying into libel.

[pathfinder73]

I believe there were road works in close proximity to the church ... also logical to check out the trenches.

The initial searches were of necessity ad hoc with everyone hoping to find a wandered child.

Professional searchers keep a record of areas searched and the personnel searching, even volunteers ... so I would imagine there must be a copy somewhere, although I've not seen one.

Professional searchers? Where were they on the night of 3 May checking the construction site by the church? What is written about professional searching of the construction site in the PJ files?

NOT professional searching.

"We were divided into groups and Ewan and Rob (both employed by Mark Warner), my cousin, Miguel, and I went in a Mark Warner vehicle to search a beach zone which included a construction site. Again, we did not see any signs of the child and after a telephone we returned to the Tapas. At this point more people were at the location, including residents of Praia da Luz. A man named Matt who owned a club in the locale, seemed to now be the operational front. A big part of our group was sent to the beach; we formed a sort of human extension cord in our searches. We finally returned to the Tapas around 04H00. We were sent home at the time."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JERONIMO-SALCEDAS.htm

NOT the church construction site.



Pipe laying statements:

"During the first days/weeks of April in Rua Direita together with Largo da Republica, the different necessary infrastructures were created such as : networks for domestic drains, water supply, public lighting and telephones. These actions took place over the course of about 30 days, following others that had been implemented along Rua Helena Nascimiento Baptista."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLOS_PEREIRA.htm

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CONSTRUCTION_WORKERS.htm

"According to his functions since 1st May, the witness began to open passages in the main roads using a mini drill, these passages were destined for the installation of electrical cables and drains for rain water respectively, in Rua Direita. When questioned, the witness replies that the passages and holes made were generally covered up on the same day they were made.
When questioned, the witness says that he remembers that on the day followie were sent home at tng the disappearance, on 4th May, various GNR officers with dogs appeared on the scene, who had come to examine the possibility that the girl might be in one of the openings. The witness says that following the events he paid more attention to the work site and never saw anything abnormal, namely the fact that the missing child could be there.
When asked, the witness says that he considers that there were no openings, that due to their size, location or to being open could present a risk for a child to fall in and disappear."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FABIO_MARQUES.htm

[Brietta]

I would suggest not straying into libel.

Absolutely! and might I take this opportunity to remind members that neither will 'goading' be tolerated.

[Miss Taken Identity]

It seems to me the event which encouraged the Smiths to come forward was the allegation that Robert Murat might have been the culprit and by extension, the man the Smiths encountered carrying a young girl.  Martin and Mary Smith knew Robert Murat after holidaying in Praia da Luz over many years, when the allegation was made they must have felt compelled to speak out.

John, I don't know why my post was removed as what I typed was accurate and not in anyway goading. I simply typed what is well known.  The Smiths initially came forward when it was thought that the man they saw that night might have been Murat and Mr Smith said NO because he knew what Murat looked like.  Later, seeing Gerry carrying Sean alight from the plane reminded Mr Smith of the man who he thoiught looked like GM.

I get it that supporters are enraged by Smithman and want him out of the picture, but OG have him in the picture and there he stays.

[Robittybob1]

Wasn't it John who said the police don't take anyone's statement as a matter of fact.  So if it is fair game for the police to question the truth of someone's statement can't we all do that?

[G-Unit]

I believe there were road works in close proximity to the church ... also logical to check out the trenches.

The initial searches were of necessity ad hoc with everyone hoping to find a wandered child.

Professional searchers keep a record of areas searched and the personnel searching, even volunteers ... so I would imagine there must be a copy somewhere, although I've not seen one.

If one thing is easily confirmed, it's the gigantic effort and commitment put into the search for Madeleine. This is how the searches were carried out;

Each search team always had an officer responsible for contact with the Lagos GNR Territorial Post, this officer would be attributed the area that the team would search and would give a photocopy of the marked area to each of the officers showing the indications about the technical manner the searches should adopt, with the formation of search lines, there had to be a visual over view of the limits of each officer's area and they were told to observe all accessible sites, where it could be possible to hide a girl or a body and the residents should be asked whether they had any useful information.

30. At the end of each search period, the individuals responsible for each group, whether they were officers or civilians, would present themselves at the Command Post, with the purpose of reporting the way in which the searches had been carried out, whether the whole of the attributed area had been searched and if any pertinent information had been gathered.

31. An organised group of volunteers, mainly English residents from the area, were also integrated into the searches, who also had a Command Post contact member, this group was attributed sectors that had been previously searched by GNR officers.

These are the people involved;

6 officers with dogs
20 officers from Lagos
10 officers from the Portimao Territorial Division
10 officers from the Silves Territorial Division
10 officers from Albufeira
15 officers from the Portimao Command Group
4 officers from the Faro TG
6 officers from GIPS
5 officers from Portimao Prosecutors Division

27. Others who took part in the searches were officers from the Lagos Public Security Police, the Maritime Police within their area of responsibility (maritime public domain), officers from Municipal Civil Protection, volunteer firemen from Lagos and from the Portuguese Red Cross.
28. Six officers from the Algarve Canine Rescue team (ECRA) - a legally constituted association - joined in the searches by volunteering their help at the P da L Operations Post.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm

[Miss Taken Identity]

Wasn't it John who said the police don't take anyone's statement as a matter of fact.  So if it is fair game for the police to question the truth of someone's statement can't we all do that?

Yes indeed Rob. that is not the complaint here. The complaint is two fold:
 1 when anyone questions the statements, with anomalies, of the McCanns they are charged and found guilty of goading  and or trolling , members were abused by being called mentally ill or unintellegent. This is unacceptable.
2.If the McCann supporters can chuck accusations about witnesses who do not show the McCanns in a good light or verify their story it's free for all attack with no reprimands at all. This is also unacceptable.

I do not know what the Smiths saw, who they saw, only they know that. As far as I am aware they are independent witnesses and should quite rightly be heard. AND since the OG seem to want to have this Smithman in the picture who are  these people who would deny a chance to at least eliminate this person.

[misty]

John, I don't know why my post was removed as what I typed was accurate and not in anyway goading. I simply typed what is well known. It was seeing Gerry carrying Sean alight from the plane that made Mr Smith recall seeing someone carry a child on that night. It was then noted that They were asked if they thought it might be Murat and he said NO because he knew what Murat looked like.

I get it that supporters are enraged by Smithman and want him out of the picture, but OG have him in the picture and there he stays.

Your post is factually incorrect. The Smith family had come forward to report their sighting long before Gerry descended the plane steps carrying one of the twins. In their original statements, the three witnesses all said that they would not recognise the man again but MS did say it was definitely not Murat. Only when MS decided 4 months later that he was 60/80% sure the man he saw was actually GM did Amaral become really interested.

IMO you have totally overlooked the relevance of Smithman to the McCanns' abduction claims. For 6 years, the focus was on Tannerman as the potential abductor, the sighting of whom was given little credence by Team Amaral & Team Halligan. When the Met announced they had "almost certainly" ruled out Tannerman as the self-confessed Crecheman, the effect was two-fold. First, the Met validated Jane's sighting. Second, and more important, it shifted the focus onto the other unidentified male carrying a child seen in Luz that night. For as long as that man remains unidentified there is still a potential abductor out there - which is more than a little beneficial to the McCann cause. So, far from wanting him removed, Smithman's lack of identification would/will always be a suitable "reasonable doubt" defence for the McCanns in the absence of any other additional evidence in the same way anyone identified as Tannerman could have used the same defence if charged.

[misty]

I would suggest not straying into libel.

I think I did a pretty good job of not libelling, given the nature of the questions being addressed to me.

[Miss Taken Identity]

If one thing is easily confirmed, it's the gigantic effort and commitment put into the search for Madeleine. This is how the searches were carried out;

Each search team always had an officer responsible for contact with the Lagos GNR Territorial Post, this officer would be attributed the area that the team would search and would give a photocopy of the marked area to each of the officers showing the indications about the technical manner the searches should adopt, with the formation of search lines, there had to be a visual over view of the limits of each officer's area and they were told to observe all accessible sites, where it could be possible to hide a girl or a body and the residents should be asked whether they had any useful information.

30. At the end of each search period, the individuals responsible for each group, whether they were officers or civilians, would present themselves at the Command Post, with the purpose of reporting the way in which the searches had been carried out, whether the whole of the attributed area had been searched and if any pertinent information had been gathered.

31. An organised group of volunteers, mainly English residents from the area, were also integrated into the searches, who also had a Command Post contact member, this group was attributed sectors that had been previously searched by GNR officers.

These are the people involved;

6 officers with dogs
20 officers from Lagos
10 officers from the Portimao Territorial Division
10 officers from the Silves Territorial Division
10 officers from Albufeira
15 officers from the Portimao Command Group
4 officers from the Faro TG
6 officers from GIPS
5 officers from Portimao Prosecutors Division

27. Others who took part in the searches were officers from the Lagos Public Security Police, the Maritime Police within their area of responsibility (maritime public domain), officers from Municipal Civil Protection, volunteer firemen from Lagos and from the Portuguese Red Cross.
28. Six officers from the Algarve Canine Rescue team (ECRA) - a legally constituted association - joined in the searches by volunteering their help at the P da L Operations Post.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GNR_SNIFFER.htm

Thank  you G  great post, and flies in the eyes of'' no one is searching for Maddie' emanating from the mouths of the 'grieving' family.

The people who did search for long hours out of care and compassion for a child were swiped aside to gain sympathy of a "lone couple left looking for their daughter while no one else cared". According to the 'family back home' on TV- IMO this is disgusting.

[faithlilly]

Your post is factually incorrect. The Smith family had come forward to report their sighting long before Gerry descended the plane steps carrying one of the twins. In their original statements, the three witnesses all said that they would not recognise the man again but MS did say it was definitely not Murat. Only when MS decided 4 months later that he was 60/80% sure the man he saw was actually GM did Amaral become really interested.

IMO you have totally overlooked the relevance of Smithman to the McCanns' abduction claims. For 6 years, the focus was on Tannerman as the potential abductor, the sighting of whom was given little credence by Team Amaral & Team Halligan. When the Met announced they had "almost certainly" ruled out Tannerman as the self-confessed Crecheman, the effect was two-fold. First, the Met validated Jane's sighting. Second, and more important, it shifted the focus onto the other unidentified male carrying a child seen in Luz that night. For as long as that man remains unidentified there is still a potential abductor out there - which is more than a little beneficial to the McCann cause. So, far from wanting him removed, Smithman's lack of identification would/will always be a suitable "reasonable doubt" defence for the McCanns in the absence of any other additional evidence in the same way anyone identified as Tannerman could have used the same defence if charged.

Who says Smithman is unidentified? Is he still n the SY website ?

[G-Unit]

Thank  you G  great post, and flies in the eyes of'' no one is searching for Maddie' emanating from the mouths of the 'grieving' family.

The people who did search for long hours out of care and compassion for a child were swiped aside to gain sympathy of a "lone couple left looking for their daughter while no one else cared". According to the 'family back home' on TV- IMO this is disgusting.

I think they did exactly the right thing. Whether Madeleine wandered or was taken, the local area had to be thoroughly searched. Kate dismissed the searches because she didn't believe her daughter had wandered. Indeed, she found them 'insulting to their intelligence' because;

there was no doubt in our minds that Madeleine had not left that apartment of her own accord [Madeleine]

She seems to have missed the possibility that abusers have been known to abandon their victims close to where they found them.

[Robittybob1]

I think they did exactly the right thing. Whether Madeleine wandered or was taken, the local area had to be thoroughly searched. Kate dismissed the searches because she didn't believe her daughter had wandered. Indeed, she found them 'insulting to their intelligence' because;

there was no doubt in our minds that Madeleine had not left that apartment of her own accord [Madeleine]

She seems to have missed the possibility that abusers have been known to abandon their victims close to where they found them.

The McCanns had underestimated the potential of her wandering via the front door and someone closing the front door after she left.

[misty]

Who says Smithman is unidentified? Is he still n the SY website ?

No he's not. Not a single image of any unidentified people of interest are now featured. However, it is important to realise that, without OG, the Smith sighting would never have been investigated further but merely remained on file as 60/80% probably GM & a discredited Jane Tanner. And Crecheman's completed questionnaire & identity would have remained buried. Amaral's thesis could never have been proven wrong in those circumstances.
IMO.

[slartibartfast]

I think I did a pretty good job of not libelling, given the nature of the questions being addressed to me.

Which is why nothing was removed or penalties applied. It was getting close, hence the warning.