Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

AndyB wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

AndyB wrote:
Has she committed an offence though? If there is any justice that has been perverted it is surely Portuguese justice. (I'm not defending her, I'm just asking)

Your allegation/claim is that Jane Tanner lied about a missing child by fabricating a 'sighting' of her. That is a very serious offence indeed.

If she did that in this country, yes it would be 'perverting the course of justice'. And your claim is that she did indeed lie to a British police force - Leicestershire Constabulary.

I do not know the law in Portugal, but in most jurisdictions the world over there are severe penalities for lying to police and lying to the courts.

It wasn't actually my allegation or my claim. What I was questioning is whether someone, having lied to the English police about an alleged crime that happened abroad, has committed an offence in English law given that, in this case, the justice that would have been perverted is Portuguese. It seems that the answer is yes, anyone who lies to the police about anything has automatically perverted the course of justice. Am I correct?

Tony Bennett wrote:According to the gospel according to DCI Redwood (Revised version, 14 October 2013, op. cit.), there were two instances on the evening of 3 May 2007 when the following were seen, on a coldish night, with the temperature about 13 deg C, 55 deg F):

1. A man

2. About say 25 to 40

3. On his own

4. With no mother, partner, girlfriend or other companion

5. Carrying a child

6. Whose head was on the man's left arm or shoulder

7. He was walking 'purposefully' (Tannerman or crecheman - the same individual according to Redwood) or fast (Smithman)

8. The child was female

9. The child was blond

10. The girl was 'about 4 years old'

11. She was dressed only in pyjamas

12. She had nothing on her feet

13. She had no covering on her to protect her against the cold

14. Her pyjamas were whiteish/pinkish

15. Her pyjamas were patterned in some way  

16. The man had no buggy or pushchair

17. He was not carrying any day clothes back home with him

18. The two lone men were wearing very similar clothing, darkish jacket and lightish trousers.


One 'sighting' was at precisely 9.15pm.

The other was, give or take a few minutes, around 9.55pm to 10.00pm.


I'm not buying either of them.

I believe neither of them ever existed.

They are both fabrications - IMO.

DCI Redwood knows this - IMO.

AndyB wrote:@ Aquila

Ok, let me put it another way. Is the offence "Perverting the course of English justice" or "Perverting the course of justice anywhere in the world".

My thinking was that, because the crime happened in Portugal and is therefore the jurisdiction of the Portuguese justice system, perhaps lying to the English police about it would not constitute the English offence of perverting the course of justice. In other words, if JT has lied to the police about Tanner man, it might not be possible to prosecute her for it in England, even if SY wanted to

Hicks wrote:Why would a whole family lie though? If what I have read it correct, Mr Smith seems a decent man who is well thought of in his community. perhaps the reason JT lied was to counteract GM being caught out by the Smith family. Don't forget she was seen acting suspiciously on the street outside the McCann's apartment an hour or so before the fake abduction. She (being Portuguese looking and wearing purple). Again, an independent witness saw her.

Tangled Web wrote:

It's quite a jump to give a fairly vague description of somebody carrying a child at night and then claim to recognise this person months later walking down some aeroplane steps....

Ladyinred wrote:I also have wondered about the Smith's family alleged sighting and why they would lie.  A big surprise for me, TB, is that Mr. Smith didn't report it until 15th May.  Until your post I had (wrongly) understood that they had reported the sighting the next day after talking to members of the family group who had returned to Ireland.  This clarifies for me your scepticism about the Smith's sighting.

1soapy wrote:Hi Watching/others.

And so your verdict upon me in clearer language that can be easily understood please?

russiandoll wrote:O/T re Tannerman and crechedad.... but Martin Smith changed his recall re clothing after 6 months. In May 2007, his memory had been the same as Aoife re the clothing worn top half... could not see/ recall what Smithman wore, then 6 months later, Martin remembered

" Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer."

Tony Bennett wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:I also have wondered about the Smith's family alleged sighting and why they would lie.  A big surprise for me, TB, is that Mr. Smith didn't report it until 15th May.  Until your post I had (wrongly) understood that they had reported the sighting the next day after talking to members of the family group who had returned to Ireland.  This clarifies for me your scepticism about the Smith's sighting.

Thanks very much for your comments.

I have struggled to get across my doubts about the whole 'Smithman thing' - and that's why on this occasion I chose to emphasise - by listing all the dayes between 3 and 16 May one by one - how, amidst the world-wide publicity on the TV, and hundreds of police and searchers and TV cameras and journalists milling around Praia da Luz, he chose to sit there, day after day, no doubt dropping down to Kelly's bar for a pint of Guinness or whatever, and, having (as he claims) seen a man carrying a young blond child in her pyjamas, did...

...precisely...

NOTHING.

He then flies back to Ireland, and once again does...

...precisely...

NOTHING.

Only when his drinking chum over the past two years, Robert Murat, gets made a suspect, does he stir himself - and only then, according to the 'Smith story', his son had to remind him by saying: 'Dad, did we see someone carrying a child 13 days ago in Praia da Luz?'.  And then, conveniently, he at last picks up his telephone, and tells the police: "I saw someone, it was dark, there was very poor lighting, I only saw him for a second or two, his face was hidden by the child so I didn't see it - but it definitely wasn't Robert Murat". 


If anyone can see any credibility in that, I'm amazed

diatribe wrote:I think it would be very difficult to prosecute Jane Tanner for attempting to pervert the course of justice in either the UK or Portugal. The reason being it would be a virtual impossibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was lying, particularly in the vein that a senior police officer has now confirmed in the form of Crecheman, that there was a person in the vicinity vaguely resembling her description.

Inspector Redwood would be her main defence witness and what could he say, ''Well actually Crecheman was a fictitious character I invented to mislead the meeja and further ensure the McCanns would never be prosecuted.''

Ladyinred wrote:

So, the Smith's saw no-one carrying a child, TB?  If they are lying I do hope they will join the (long) list of people charged with perverting the course of justice and if/when this case is ever resolved.

AndyB wrote:
I don't follow how inventing Crecheman helps ensure the McCann's are never prosecuted. The only person I can see it helping is JT: Like you say, it protects her from a charge of perverting the course of justice and, in my more optimistic moments, I believe Crecheman may have been invented for precisely this reason in exchange for JT telling SY what really happened/giving evidence

diatribe wrote:But Andy, Crecheman was merely substituted by Smithman, yet another fictitious character. 

Tony Bennett wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:I also have wondered about the Smith's family alleged sighting and why they would lie.  A big surprise for me, TB, is that Mr. Smith didn't report it until 15th May.  Until your post I had (wrongly) understood that they had reported the sighting the next day after talking to members of the family group who had returned to Ireland.  This clarifies for me your scepticism about the Smith's sighting.

Thanks very much for your comments.

I have struggled to get across my doubts about the whole 'Smithman thing' - and that's why on this occasion I chose to emphasise - by listing all the dayes between 3 and 16 May one by one - how, amidst the world-wide publicity on the TV, and hundreds of police and searchers and TV cameras and journalists milling around Praia da Luz, he chose to sit there, day after day, no doubt dropping down to Kelly's bar for a pint of Guinness or whatever, and, having (as he claims) seen a man carrying a young blond child in her pyjamas, did...

...precisely...

NOTHING.

He then flies back to Ireland, and once again does...

...precisely...

NOTHING.

Only when his drinking chum over the past two years, Robert Murat, gets made a suspect, does he stir himself - and only then, according to the 'Smith story', his son had to remind him by saying: 'Dad, did we see someone carrying a child 13 days ago in Praia da Luz?'.  And then, conveniently, he at last picks up his telephone, and tells the police: "I saw someone, it was dark, there was very poor lighting, I only saw him for a second or two, his face was hidden by the child so I didn't see it - but it definitely wasn't Robert Murat". 


If anyone can see any credibility in that, I'm amazed

• On 15th, how well "developed" was Tannerman?  Had hair sprouted on his head at this time, his former egg like self gone for good?
  
• Had Jane filled in his missing bits by 15th in such a way that Murat could be considered by police as a ringer for Tannerman?
  

• And did not Murat have an alibi - his mother- did he then need Smith and his family to invent a story for him - and if he was innocent? 
  
• Did Murat communicate with Smith between the time he was made arguido on 15th and Smith inventing/reporting to police on 16th?
  
• On the 15th May at whatever time Smith became aware of Murat becoming arguido he would then have had to make a huge decision to invent a story which involved not only adult members of his family but a child his daughter, putting them all at serious risk of their 'crime' being discovered making them criminals. 
  
• Would a father do this to his child put a child in such a terrible position with the law? 
  
• How could he be sure the child would be able to carry it off?
  
• Or, are we saying, Smith had this 'sighting' of Smithman invented prior to 15th/16th and on back burner all waiting and ready should Murat have his collar felt?  
  
• And the child - did she not say Smithman wore trousers with buttons?
  
• Did Murat own such a pair?
  
• Did Murat ever discover that Smith had given him such an alibi?  Or did/does Murat believe Smith family saw a man carrying a little girl?
  
• How close are they, Smith and Murat?
  
• What would make Smith think Murat required an alibi - did he doubt his "friend" think it possible that he could have abducted a child? 
  

AndyB wrote:
I'm not sure what relevance Smithman has. The central point is that you suggested that Redwood invented Crecheman to help prevent the McCann's from being prosecuted but I don't see how it does that. What am I missing?

diatribe wrote:

AndyB wrote:
I'm not sure what relevance Smithman has. The central point is that you suggested that Redwood invented Crecheman to help prevent the McCann's from being prosecuted but I don't see how it does that. What am I missing?

The timeline, Andy, Tannerman being the kidnapper was all but a physical impossibility with the timings according to the McCanns, whereas Smithman at least made kidnapping a physical possibility, albeit limited. Remember Redwood's words ''There was a window of opportunity.'' I took this to mean than there wasn't with Tannerman.

Redwood not only allowed Tanner to walk away unblemished, he also created a more viable opportunity for a kidnapping to have occurred than the McCann's hypothesis. I don't see how you could possibly have any faith with an investigating body which doesn't have jurisdiction rights over the crime they are purportedly investigating. If they were investigating a potential fraud in respect to the McCann's Foundation Fund where they do have jurisdiction rights, then it would a least appear to be an authentic investigation, even if it wasn't.

diatribe wrote:

AndyB wrote:
I'm not sure what relevance Smithman has. The central point is that you suggested that Redwood invented Crecheman to help prevent the McCann's from being prosecuted but I don't see how it does that. What am I missing?

The timeline, Andy, Tannerman being the kidnapper was all but a physical impossibility with the timings according to the McCanns, whereas Smithman at least made kidnapping a physical possibility, albeit limited. Remember Redwood's words ''There was a window of opportunity.'' I took this to mean than there wasn't with Tannerman.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Tangled Web wrote:

It's quite a jump to give a fairly vague description of somebody carrying a child at night and then claim to recognise this person months later walking down some aeroplane steps....

They didn't actually 'recognise' him. Mr Smith claims it was 'the way he was carrying his child on his left shoulder' that made him '60% to 80% certain' that the man he claims to have seen was Gerry McCann. Since about half the population carry their child on their left shoulder and the other 50% on the right, this was patent nonsense.

There are a great many reasons why I disbelieve the Smiths.

Among them are:

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 4 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 5 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 6 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 7 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 8 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz on 9 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Praia da Luz and flew back to Ireland on 10 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Ireland on 11 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Ireland on 12 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Ireland on 13 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Ireland on 14 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Smith was in Ireland on 15 May 2007 and did not report his so-called 'sighting' to anyone

* Robert Murat was made an arguido on 15 May 2007

* Smith had met Muart 'many times' in Praia da Luz over a period of over 2 years, including 'in bars'

* Smith rents an apartment at the Estrela dal Luz complex and goes there 'several times a year'

* Smith claimed that on 16 May 2007 his son 'phoned him and said: 'Dad, did we see someone carrying a child?' Smith, apparently, suddenly remembered that 'Yes, I did'

* Only then did Smith contact police, and the only thing he was really sure about was that the person he claimed to have seen was 'definitely not Robert Murat'.


I have many other reasons for my view which I've stated on the 'Smithman' threads