The investigation into the Smith family's sighting

[slartibartfast]

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?

Independent witnesses or police personnel with no axe to grind have more protection than those more closely aligned to the main players.

[faithlilly]

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.

So you agree Smithman could have been identified?

[Robittybob1]

Independent witnesses or police personnel with no axe to grind have more protection than those more closely aligned to the main players.

Closely aligned?  I don't understand that insinuation.

[slartibartfast]

Closely aligned?  I don't understand that insinuation.

It’s not an insinuation, it’s a statement. The T9 are not independent witnesses.

[faithlilly]

He could have been. If he has been identified, then quite clearly he was not Gerry.
Equally the sighting could have been discredited in the same fashion Jane's was.

Was Tanner's sighting discredited then ?

[sadie]

Let me rephrase the question. Do you have any evidence, any evidence at all that the Smith sighting didn't happen exactly as the family described ?

Well there are the discrepancies between the two male Smiths times of going to Kellys and the time on the receipt from leaving The Dolphin Restaurant

This discrepenciy was a massive half an hour.  Aoifes time of leaving agreed with the time on the receipt



So the two men were half an hour out with the receipt time, whilst Aoife agreed with it.



Half an hour difference in any of the Tapas Group timings would have them hung, drawn and quartered.

[sadie]

Misty can we stick to the question I asked which was donyou have any evidence, any evidence at all that the Smith sighting didn't happen exactly as the family described ?

See above answer

Quite major time differences,, which The Mccanns would not be allowed to get away with !!!.

[sadie]

Can I take it by your answer that you have no evidence ?

Given my points about time variances and also mistys posts above, there are pointers Faith, more than one, but I doubt that any could be taken as evidence.

[sadie]

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

Someone asked if these holes were close to the church.   

Assuming that the plans above respond to the pertinent holes, are accurate, and that I am understanding them correctly ( I think I am) then the lower dug up area [Area One] is approximately 100 meters crow flies from the church

[Robittybob1]

It’s not an insinuation, it’s a statement. The T9 are not independent witnesses.

I understand what you mean now thanks.  I thought that was a moderator comment.

[pathfinder73]

Someone asked if these holes were close to the church.   

Assuming that the plans above respond to the pertinent holes, are accurate, and that I am understanding them correctly ( I think I am) then the lower dug up area [Area One] is approximately 100 meters crow flies from the church

A construction site was behind the church.

[sadie]

A construction site was behind the church.

Ah, then that isn't shown on your plan / diagram.  The nearest spot on your plan is 100 metres away

When I visited last, I think that was in 2014, pavements and kerbs were being built / laid behind the church and the area was used as a small (?temporary?) car park.  As we arrived Kate Mccann was getting into her car.  I didn't see her, but hubby did.   

When we visited a couple of years before that, i seem to remember just a rough stoney sandy area.  Fairly flat, but I didn't take too much notice.

Mybe Pdl is laid back and took seven years to finally finish off the work?   dunno, but it seems a bit too long to me.

[pathfinder73]

Ah, then that isn't shown on your plan / diagram.  The nearest spot on your plan is 100 metres away

When I visited last, I think that was in 2014, pavements and kerbs were being built / laid behind the church and the area was used as a small (?temporary?) car park.  As we arrived Kate Mccann was getting into her car.  I didn't see her, but hubby did.   

When we visited a couple of years before that, i seem to remember just a rough stoney sandy area.  Fairly flat, but I didn't take too much notice.

Mybe Pdl is laid back and took seven years to finally finish off the work?   dunno, but it seems a bit too long to me.

That's not my plan Sadie. It's from the PJ files. The construction site was not in the files and you are correct, it is now a car park.

[John]

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.

Seeing Gerry on the TV News carrying Sean down the steps of the aircraft certainly reminded Martin Smith of the man they had encountered carrying a child on the night that Madeleine disappeared but as has already been pointed out, they had already considered whether that sighting was imporatnt or not when they heard that Robert Murat was in the frame as Tannerman and by extension possibly Smithman.

The Smiths had two involvements with the police, initially to inform them that the man they had seen was definately not Robert Murat and much later on to assert their suspicion that the man may have been GMcC.

[John]

Misty can we stick to the question I asked which was donyou have any evidence, any evidence at all that the Smith sighting didn't happen exactly as the family described ?

There is no reason to believe the Smiths were anything but genuine in all their associations with the case.