Re: The efits produced by the Smiths, has the man been found yet?

by **Tony Bennett** 06.09.15 13:15

pennylane wrote:
There's a common legal term for what TM did (imo) and it's called 'witness tampering.'

Again, what do we know?

1. That whatever Martin Smith and the Smiths have said and done, there are significant questions marks about their evidence

2. Martin Smith's claim that he could 'recognise' Gerry McCann, over four months after he says he saw the man, with his head down, for a second or two, in the dark, and said he'd never be able to recognise him again - and on the massively slender basis that it was 'the way he was carrying Sean over his left shoulder' - is highly doubtful

3. According to the article by Mark Hollingsworth in the Evening Standard in August 2009, Brian Kennedy and his men had intimidated several witnesses (plural) into silence.

Now, on the evidence I have seen I do not accept for one moment that it was Gerry McCann who was carrying Madeleine's lifeless body through the streets of Praia da Luz at about 10pm on 3 May, nor do I accept Martin Smith as a witness of truth, as everyone here knows.

However, where I do accept that pennylane could be right, is where she suggests that there may have been 'witness tampering'.

I think it's well within the bounds of possibility that Martin Smith was 'got at' by members of the McCann Team, or those they employed, and has agreed (for whatever reason, we don't of course know for sure) to tow the McCanns' line and support them.

One specific possibility is that Martin Smith was asked simply to consent to affirming that he and his family had drawn up those efits - when in fact they hadn't done so at all. Henri Exton could have produced those two e-fits of two very different-looking men from actual photographs of people he knew.

Similarly, did he agree with the McCann Team changing his evidence for the audio message? - changing the man's age from 40 to '34 to 35'?

Or by that time did he just have to go along with whatever the McCann Team - and later Operation Grange - asked him to do?

Finally, 'witness tampering' is better known by the courts as perverting the course of justice

by kaz 09.09.15 13:31

If, as you state Tony, the Smithman sighting was not a true account of the event, why would the McCann team need to exercise a bit of muscle on a re write ? I actually believe you're right about the Smiths by the way but am puzzled as to why it would be of such concern to the McCann team. I personally believe that OG picked it up and ran with it because it reinforced a completely false time frame for Madeleine's disappearance . The OG doing what it was meant to do ...........................create diversion, subversion and a completely fanciful version!

by **Tony Bennett** 09.09.15 14:17

kaz wrote:If, as you state Tony, the Smithman sighting was not a true account of the event, why would the McCann Team need to exercise a bit of muscle on a re write?

REPLY: I'm sorry, this is a bit of a riddle, I am not sure what you mean by 'exercising a bit of muscle on a re-write'. If you could explain, I will try to supply an answer. I think you might be referring to why the McCann Team (n in early 2009) changed the age Martin Smith gave for the man he claimed he saw from '40' to 'about 34 to 35' for the purpose of the audio recording of the Smith 'sighting' on their website - then I have no idea. It must have suited their purposes at the time. Or maybe Martin Smith said something like: "Goodness! I remember it now! He didn't look 40, he was about 34! Or maybe 35!" You will have to ask the McCanns. Or their spokesman, the current head of 'Clarence Mitchell Communications'.

If you mean why did they 'muscle in' on the Smith sighting as early as December 2008, I think I have given a fair explanation in my article 'The Nine Phases of Smithman', here:     [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I actually believe you're right about the Smiths by the way

REPLY: Join the club! Its members are growing in numbers.

but am puzzled as to why it would be of such concern to the McCann Team.

REPLY: Because they could make very good use of it?

I personally believe that OG picked it up and ran with it because it reinforced a completely false time frame for Madeleine's disappearance.

REPLY: Yes! Remember the sound of that clock ticking loudly during the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special, as Redwood and the BBC Amroliwala exulted about his Damascene 'Revelation Moment'? Smithman miraculously widened the 'window' for the abduction from less than 5 minutes if Tannerman was the abductor, to 50 minutes (9.10pm to 10.00pm) if Smithman was the abductor.

Brilliant! - even if founded an a whole series of fabrications. It even enabled him to say that an intruder may have murdered Madeleine in the apartment ("she may have been dead when she 'left' the apartment").

The OG doing what it was meant to do...create diversion, subversion and a completely fanciful version!

REPLY: Or to use my oft-repeated words, not far off those of Wendy Murphy's: "An expensive charade designed to influence public perception".

by willowthewisp 09.09.15 14:41

Hi Tony,
Better alert Interpol to find Messers,SIO Hamish Campbell and cohort DCI Andy Redwood to the House of Parliament to explain themselves with regard to another scam documentary,Crime Watch, October 2013 to help to deceive the public of what happened in Operation Grange, since they were unable to find the Abductor?
DCI Andy Redwood in the Crime Watch program, I think failed to reveal who had made the E-Fits and how long they had been in someone's possession?
He had however discovered "creche Dad"plus Pyjama clothing and moved the time scale to 50 minutes for an abductor to have absconded from the scene, with Madeleine?
The two named officers have been able to clarify that the Tapas group and parents were not suspects though, in the missing girl Madeleine McCann, Got that!!?

by kaz 09.09.15 14:48

Bit of a risk though with the photofit looking so like Gerry McCann. Maybe the risk was worth taking if as you say it supplied a much wider 'window of
abduction opportunity.' Especially if you can support it with another e fit of someone who looks nothing like the the man the Smiths were supposed to believe it was. A good result! Maybe Andy Dead, sorry Red, Wood is not as daft as he looks and am I the only one who thinks the non Gerry version looks rather like Redwood himself? Maybe Mr Smith was having a private joke with that one.
I can only think that since the OG were willing to pick it up and run with it that there was no substance whatsoever to the whole scenario. It's just a diversion.

by Ray_Sneek 09.09.15 18:48

kaz wrote:Bit of a risk though with the photofit looking so like Gerry McCann.

But does it, though?

One of the two Op Grange e-fits:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A lookalike?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Another lookalike?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by kaz 09.09.15 19:03

No, that one doesn't but the other one does. The one you show is very much like Redwood himself in my opinion. Mr Smith having a private joke? Ridiculous isn't it that two
e fits purporting to show the same man can be so utterly different?

by Ray_Sneek 09.09.15 19:04

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Some more lookalikes? - 1

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yet another:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Gerry McCann?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Or him?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Two years, TWO e-fits...and they've still not found him?

by **sharonl** 09.09.15 22:03

kaz wrote:Bit of a risk though with the photofit looking so like Gerry McCann. Maybe the risk was worth taking if as you say it supplied a much wider 'window of
abduction opportunity.' Especially if you can support it with another e fit of someone who looks nothing like the the man the Smiths were supposed to believe it was. A good result! Maybe Andy Dead, sorry Red, Wood is not as daft as he looks and am I the only one who thinks the non Gerry version looks rather like Redwood himself? Maybe Mr Smith was having a private joke with that one.
I can only think that since the OG were willing to pick it up and run with it that there was no substance whatsoever to the whole scenario. It's just a diversion.

There were two completely different e-fits. How can we say that one of them looks like someone without the other ruling him out?

Which one looks like Gerry McCann? The only likeness I see is the hair colouring.

If one e-fit did look like McCann, could this be a cunning & diversionary ploy to once again remove our attention from an earlier time to the evening of May 3rd when he had the alibi of being at the Tapas? And of course the 2nd e-fit that looks nothing like the first, to back him up?

Mr Sneek - If you know who your Avatar man is may I suggest that you contact the Portuguese Police or at least pass it onto Goncalo Amaral - that's really spooky.

by worriedmum 09.09.15 22:14

I think both e-fits could easily be of the same person.

You have to factor in that two different people constructed them;they viewed the person from different angles; hairlines viewed from the side might lead you to make assumptions about the face full on....

by **Tony Bennett** 09.09.15 22:43

worriedmum wrote:I think both e-fits could easily be of the same person.

You have to factor in that two different people constructed them; they viewed the person from different angles; hairlines viewed from the side might lead you to make assumptions about the face full on....

FIRST POINT

On their own admission, the Smiths say they saw this person:

* in the dark
* with poor street lighting
* for two or three seconds at the most
* Martin Smith said he had his head down
* and all three of them signed a declaration on 26 May 2007 that they would never be able to recognise him again if they saw him

SECOND POINT

Despite all that, it was about one year later (on the evidence that's been made available to us), or maybe longer than a year, that it is claimed that the former Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5, Henri Exton, drew up these two efits with the help of the Smith

THIRD POINT

How far would you trust the word of MI5's former Head of Covert Intelligence, who was dismissed and convicted of a crime after stealing a bottle of perfume from Manchester Airport, and was working for con-man, fraudster and criminal Kevin Halligen?

FOURTH POINT

When was the last time the police, looking for a suspect, put out two different images of the bloke they want to find?

FIFTH POINT

Looking at the two faces:

                                A                                                                  B

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

1. A has olive skin, B has white
2. A has crew cut, B has longer hair brushed back (& looks older)
3. A has triangular face, B has rectangular face
4. A has thinner face, B fatter
5. A has small, triangular chin, B has large chin
6. A has much longer nose than B
7. A has thinner lips than B



These are just some of the points that make no sense to me.

by Liz Eagles 09.09.15 22:48

The similarities are remarkable. A revelation in fact.

They both have:

Ears

Eyes

Nose

Chin

Hair

Forehead

Cheeks

Lips

laughat

by **sharonl** 09.09.15 23:17

I would love to have a pound for every time the media have said

"Madeleine McCann disappeared from her bed on the evening of May 3rd 2007 whilst her parents ate at the local tapas"

From her bed?

On May 3rd?

Whilst her parents ate at the local tapas?

No, sorry, but no matter how many times the media have tried to throw this at us, I am not buying it. Certainly not until I see some credible evidence that Madeleine was around after tea time on April 29th and up until tea time on May 3rd.

If the PJ were right and an abduction had been staged, then when exactly did Madeleine disappear? Not necessarily on the evening of May 3rd. BUT, it would be within their interests to convince us that this disappearance occurred during that evening in order to divert attention from the actual time of Madeleines' disappearance and to stop the police from asking awkward questions about those previous days.

What exactly were the tapas 9 doing during the period of April 29 - May 3rd?

We know what they did on April 28th up until the afternoon of the 29th and we know what they did from May 3rd onwards, but what about in between? The PJ files and Kates' book tells us very little. Look at Jane Tanners Rogatory interview, Leics police skim over that period - its conveniently irrelevant.

To make this story stick there had to be some evidence somewhere that Madeleine disappeared on May 3rd, so in the absence of such evidence, the only thing that you can do is create some.

Firstly we have the Tanner sighting which never did hold much credibility.

Then we have 3 members of the Smith family backing up the Tanner sighting.

Tanner changes her story and points the finger at Murat

Smith clears Murat with a sighting of someone who was "no one out of the ordinary" but definately not Murat

Smith points the finger at Gerry McCann

Gerry has an alibi of being at the tapas

Smith backtracks and fails to turn up when required in Portugal

Five years later two different e-fits emerge, some think that one looks like Gerry but that doesnt matter because there is a second one.

We are left with:

Murat is in the clear for May 3rd

McCann is in the clear for May 3rd

And that great media line still stands

"Madeleine McCann disappeared from her bed on the evening of May 3rd 2007 whilst her parents ate at the local tapas"

Very clever - but I am still not buying it.

by kaz 10.09.15 8:28

@sharoni

Couldn't have said it better myself. The Smith sighting in a nutshell.

by Ray_Sneek 10.09.15 10:40

sharonl wrote:
Mr Sneek - If you know who your Avatar man is may I suggest that you contact the Portuguese Police or at least pass it onto Goncalo Amaral - that's really spooky.

I do know who Avatar man is.

It is my opinion that he looks very much like one (but not the other) of the e-fits:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Which is why I have asked what other people here think about these images.

But I have a problem with your suggestion.

Suppose for one moment I am right, and that this man is indeed represented in that grainy e-fit.

My problem is that I know he was not in Praia da Luz at about 10.00pm on Thursday, 3rd May. Nor was he there at all at that time.

So he can't be the man seen by the Smiths

by worriedmum 10.09.15 11:34

Per-lease....

It isn't a competitition on the back of a cereal packet to find the 'man-who-looks -most-like'....

It is a facet in an investigation into the disappearance and possible death of a three year old......as has been stated elsewhere, some of the evidence is cumulative?

by joyce1938 10.09.15 12:08

The Smiths didn't back up tannerman sighting at all, he said what he and family saw from uneven distances, so some could see one thing and others saw from a different perspective, they were walking in road and some in front by sounds of it. Mr Smith and, I think, his son did return and saw Mr Amaral, he says so? Was supposed to come again but Amaral was moved on, and another did not request it. May have got muddled with first visit, he did report it after few days, I don't think 13 days was the no. joyce1938

by sallypelt 10.09.15 12:26

Can I ask what members think about the way Gerry McCann carried his son down the steps of the plane, on the return from Portugal? Does anyone think it's a natural way to carry a sleeping child?

by joyce1938 10.09.15 12:30

Yes many people would carry a child this way,i think maybe the sort of way he moved and maybe held his head ,would be what would jog a memory and that's what elerted smith I feel .ofcourse it would be almost impossible to prove from that alone ,and as we cant have seen the event when it occurred on the night ,we may never know . joyce1938

by sallypelt 10.09.15 12:37

joyce1938 wrote:Yes many people would carry a child this way,i think maybe the sort of way he moved and maybe held his head ,would be what would jog a memory and that's what elerted smith I feel .ofcourse it would be almost impossible to prove from that alone ,and as we cant have seen the event when it occurred on the night ,we may never know . joyce1938

Thank you for your swift reply joyce. I totally agree that it's a natural way to carry a child. The reason for my asking is, why did Martin Smith say this in his 26/5/07 statement:

"He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual".
It sooo backs up what Jane Tanner said in HER statement.

Yet, Martin Smith says in a later statement, AFTER he saw Gerry McCann carrying his sleeping son, quite naturally down the steps of the plane, that it was the way GM was carrying the child that made MS "60-80% sure" that it was GM.

by kaz 10.09.15 13:02

Yes I totally agree. This is a natural way to carry a sleepy toddler especially for a father
and it always puzzled me that Mr Smith thought it wasn't.
I'm with 'sharoni' in that OG picked up on the alleged Smith sighting because it suited their purposes of fixing that spurious time and date in the public's eye. I don't believe that Madeleine disappeared soon after they arrived though because the crèche records attest to her being at the playgroup. I know Cat Baker could hardly remember her own name when interviewed but I'm sure she wouldn't have imagined that Madeleine was there for several days when she wasn't. Unless of course she's lying but why would she? A substitution child wouldn't work either. Try calling a child by its incorrect name...........they'll soon put you right.
If however Madeleine ' went missing ' on the Wednesday evening I can see that might work. Cat Baker seems to be thoroughly confused about Thursday and certainly in awe of the McCann couple. The only other people who saw Madeleine that day......................apart from her parents......................would have been Fiona when she accompanied Kate to the crèche . Remember when Kate watched her daughter scampering on ahead all dressed in pink as they left the crèche. ( I think ) Did anyone actually ask Fiona the question, did you actually SEE Madeleine? The other person of course was David Payne who saw the children all dressed in white like little angels at 6.30 ( ISH.................he never seems quite sure ) and I wouldn't give you a penny for THAT little story.

by **sharonl** 10.09.15 23:13

kaz wrote:Yes I totally agree. This is a natural way to carry a sleepy toddler especially for a father
and it always puzzled me that Mr Smith thought it wasn't.
I'm with 'sharoni' in that OG picked up on the alleged Smith sighting because it suited their purposes of fixing that spurious time and date in the public's eye. I don't believe that Madeleine disappeared soon after they arrived though because the crèche records attest to her being at the playgroup. I know Cat Baker could hardly remember her own name when interviewed but I'm sure she wouldn't have imagined that Madeleine was there for several days when she wasn't. Unless of course she's lying but why would she? A substitution child wouldn't work either. Try calling a child by its incorrect name...........they'll soon put you right.
If however Madeleine ' went missing ' on the Wednesday evening I can see that might work. Cat Baker seems to be thoroughly confused about Thursday and certainly in awe of the McCann couple. The only other people who saw Madeleine that day......................apart from her parents......................would have been Fiona when she accompanied Kate to the crèche . Remember when Kate watched her daughter scampering on ahead all dressed in pink as they left the crèche. ( I think ) Did anyone actually ask Fiona the question, did you actually SEE Madeleine? The other person of course was David Payne who saw the children all dressed in white like little angels at 6.30 ( ISH.................he never seems quite sure ) and I wouldn't give you a penny for THAT little story.

Going slightly off topic here with the crèche records, if anyone wants to discuss this we should go back to the relevant thread. But just quickly, I will say that I am sceptical about Cat Baker for a number of reasons.

Her reaction to Madeleines' disappearance was way over the top. Many people who met her were obviously very upset by the news of her disappearance as you would expect Cat and the other nannies to be, but according to her, she was more distraught than anyone. she claimed that she couldn't function at all, not sleeping, not eating, not able to do anything - In a worse state than Kate herself.

There was her relationship with the McCanns - why visit them at home? She hardly knew them, and they were suspects in Madeleines' disappearance

Where did Kate and Cat originally meet? We have conflicting reports on this, at the welcome meeting on Saturday or at the creche on Sunday morning? Either way, despite not wanting to leave the kids with strangers, Kate warmed to Cat immediately.

The crèche records were all over the place, very badly maintained. Why did the records show that the kids were all in the crèche when the McCanns were claiming to have taken them to the beach?

Why were so many of the nannies quickly transferred to a Mark Warner complex in Greece just after Madeleine vanished?

Why were so many of the OC staff sacked when Madeleine vanished?

Was something weird going on at the Ocean Club, either through the club itself of via the one or more of its managers?

What was it about this basic holiday that attracted so many wealthier people?

Why did David Payne choose this particular holiday?

by **Tony Bennett** 11.09.15 0:06

joyce1938 wrote:(First post) The Smiths didn't back up Tannerman sighting at all,

REPLY: You are quite wrong there, with respect, @ joyce1938.

For a start, Amaral in his book states clearly that the Smiths' description of Smithman reminded him of Tannerman.

Second, look once again at the similarity of the descriptions. Both Tanner and Smith make much of the man 'not looking like a tourist', whatever that is supposed to mean. Jane Tanner used the phrase. The McCanns used it in their audio summary of Martin Smith's statements. Then there are the other remarkable similarities: the beige trousers, made of cloth, shoes in a classic style and so forth. And, as I've said on the Krokowski thread, these are EXACTLY the same as when Nuno Lourenco described Wojchiech Krokowski in that early morning telephone call to the PJ on Friday 5 May - THREE separate descriptions closely matching each other. Why?

he said what he and family saw from uneven distances, so some could see one thing and others saw from a different perspective, they were walking in [the] road and some in front by sounds of it.

Mr Smith and, I think, his son did return and saw Mr Amaral, he says so?

REPLY: The three Smiths - Martin, Peter and Aoife - were interviewed in person in Portugal by the PJ on 26 May 2007. None of them were ever interviewed by the PJ after that.

Was supposed to come again but Amaral was moved on, and another did not request it. May have got muddled with first visit,

REPLY: You're right about that, Smith's claim to have recognised Gerry McCann was passed to the PJ on 20 September. Just 12 days later he was removed as investigation co-ordinator. In his book, Amaral said he would have liked to re-interview Smith about his claim but was unable to because he'd been moved to other duties. But as you know, I think the Smiths were fooling him

he did report it after few days, I don't think 13 days was the no. joyce1938

REPLY: Martin Smith delayed reporting his original sighting for 13 days (3rd to 16th May). He delayed reporting his claimed identification of Gerry McCann by 11 days (9th to 20th September).

(Second post) Yes many people would carry a child this way, I think maybe the sort of way he moved and maybe held his head would be what would jog a memory and that's what alerted Smith I feel.

REPLY: But we can't really say what we feel Smith had in his mind when he have his actual words - and he doesn't say that. Here, without further comment, are his actual words from his statement:

QUOTE

He states he was watching the 10 pm news on BBC and saw the McCANNS getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the other male seen the night Maddy went missing. He also watched ITV news and SKY news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children.

UNQUOTE

Of course it would be almost impossible to prove from that alone, and as we can't have seen the event when it occurred on the night, we may never know . joyce1938

REPLY: I doubt if I will ever shift your view on the Smith's claimed sighting. It is a fact that right-handed men will invariably carry a sleeping or tired infant on their left shoulder, so there really was nothing strange about that

by Guest 11.09.15 0:22

Tony Bennett wrote:
sharonl wrote:Smith said in his statement that this man with a child was nothing out of the ordinary and that he would not be able to identify him again. Then suddenly he develops a photographic memory.

Sorry Redwood but you have two faulty pegs there, the second one has more flaws than the first.
Exactly so - and Martin Smith saying his 'sighting' was nothing out of the ordinary reveals just one set of holes in the Smiths' claims.

For we have:

1. Mary Smith: We didn’t think anything of it’

In the Sun, 3 January 2008, Mary Smith is asked about the claimed ‘sighting’ and says “We didn’t think anything of it”.

2. Mary Smith approached the man

In the Daily Mail, 3 January 2008, Smith claims that, without warning, she approached the man with the question: ‘Oh, is she asleep?’ He is said to have ignored her. But she never went to Portugal to make a statement about this.

3. Martin Smith said it was a ‘disturbing encounter’

In the same Daily Mail article, 3 January 2008, Martin Smith is quoted as saying that “It was a disturbing encounter”.

4. 'Very unusual'

In the same Daily Mail report, 3 January 2008, we read:

“AN IRISH holidaymaker has spoken publicly for the first time of his disturbing encounter with a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared.

“…the sighting…is strikingly similar to one by a friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner. In hindsight, the retired Mr Smith said, the man’s rude behaviour should have aroused his suspicions.

“Martin Smith said: ‘The one thing we noted afterwards was that he gave us no greeting. My wife Mary remembered afterwards that she asked him: 'Oh, is she asleep?' But he never acknowledged her one way or another. He just put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year".

5. Apparently Martin Smith was able to help drawing up two detailed e-fits, despite seeing the man for a second or two in the dark with his head down:

Martin Smith: "He just put his head down and averted his eyes".

None of this in the 3 Smith statements, 26 May 2007, each of which describe the encounter as normal and the man as un-memorable.

by Guest 11.09.15 0:29

tigger wrote:
worriedmum wrote:Jeanmonroe, I don't think it means that he had nothing at all to do with the e-fits/photo-fits- I took it that he just did not assist BK.
Here you are:

I will answer your questions in turn.

At Question 1 you asked:

On what date or dates did DCI Redwood or others meet with Anthony Summers
& Robbyn Swan?

The MPS response is:

15/02/2013

At Question 2 you asked:

Who, apart from DCI Redwood and the authors, was present at those
meetings?

The MPS response is:

An MPS Detective Inspector was also present at the meeting. The names and
details of witnesses are never given out and are covered by the Section
40(2)(3) which is detailed below. [see for further information: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] = 15th October, page 3]

At Question 4 you asked:

Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two
witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually
other witnesses? If so, please state who they were.

The MPS response is:

The program[me - sp.] was referring to members of the Irish family who created the e-fits.

At Question 5 you asked:

Are the e-fits of the same man, or not?

The MPS response is:

Yes they are the same man.

At Questions 3, 6 & 7 you asked:

3. On what date were these two e-fits created?

6. On what date were these two e-fits first shown to members of Operation
Grange?

7. On what dates in 2012 and 2013, or otherwise in 2011 and 2014, did
members of Operation Grange (a) meet with members of the Irish family or
(b) have contact with the Irish family, whether by telephone, e-mail,
letter or otherwise?

The MPS response is:
REASONS FOR DECISION

The information you have requested is exempt in part by the virtue of
Section 30(1)(a) and Section 40(2)(a)(b) and (3)(a)(i)(ii)(b) of the Act.

To disclose information which could cause a person arrested to be
identified and interfere with any ongoing investigation cannot be
maintained.

Section 30 is a classed based & qualified exemption

That is nice, Tigger, nice. Many thanks.

by pennylane 11.09.15 12:20

worriedmum wrote:Per-lease....

It isn't a competition on the back of a cereal packet to find the 'man-who-looks -most-like'....

It is a facet in an investigation into the disappearance and possible death of a three year old......as has been stated elsewhere, some of the evidence is cumulative?

Of course you're absolutely right, worriedmum. nod

by pennylane 11.09.15 12:27

joyce1938 wrote:The Smiths didn't back up tannerman sighting at all, he said what he and family saw from uneven distances, so some could see one thing and others saw from a different perspective, they were walking in road and some in front by sounds of it. Mr Smith and, I think, his son did return and saw Mr Amaral, he says so? Was supposed to come again but Amaral was moved on, and another did not request it. May have got muddled with first visit, he did report it after few days, I don't think 13 days was the no. joyce1938

Spot on! In addition, Jane Tanner's alleged bundleman had long dark hair, and the Smith's have never said that the man they saw had long dark hair, or that his hair was tied back.

I believe Maddie died on 3rd, and that she was alive at high tea. I believe they found her body after the first 9:20 alarm was raised. I don't believe the nannies and everyone else are lying, and I don't believe the Smiths are lying.... in fact I believe the Smiths are the only witnesses to the crime!

Even where people keep saying that Martin said he a "disturbing encounter," in fact nowhere is this in quotes in the article, and is probably the journalist's description. That same article clearly has Martin Smith's actual words in quotes, and that is not among them.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.09.15 12:38

pennylane wrote:
I believe they found her body after the first 9:20 alarm was raised.

Now that is one of the strangest statements about the case that I have ever seen on this forum.

@ pennylane - did you really mean to say that?

by pennylane 11.09.15 12:40

Tony Bennett wrote:
pennylane wrote:
I believe they found her body after the first 9:20 alarm was raised.
Now that is one of the strangest statements about the case that I have ever seen on this forum.

@ pennylane - did you really mean to say that?

Hi Tony,

Yes I did. I believe their entire story was backfitted. I should have said after the first 9:20 commotion was "overheard!"

by pennylane 11.09.15 12:54

Elça Craig wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
sharonl wrote:Smith said in his statement that this man with a child was nothing out of the ordinary and that he would not be able to identify him again. Then suddenly he develops a photographic memory.

Sorry Redwood but you have two faulty pegs there, the second one has more flaws than the first.
Exactly so - and Martin Smith saying his 'sighting' was nothing out of the ordinary reveals just one set of holes in the Smiths' claims.

For we have:

1. Mary Smith: We didn’t think anything of it’

In the Sun, 3 January 2008, Mary Smith is asked about the claimed ‘sighting’ and says “We didn’t think anything of it”.

2. Mary Smith approached the man

In the Daily Mail, 3 January 2008, Smith claims that, without warning, she approached the man with the question: ‘Oh, is she asleep?’ He is said to have ignored her. But she never went to Portugal to make a statement about this.

3. Martin Smith said it was a ‘disturbing encounter’

In the same Daily Mail article, 3 January 2008, Martin Smith is quoted as saying that “It was a disturbing encounter”.

4. 'Very unusual'

In the same Daily Mail report, 3 January 2008, we read:

“AN IRISH holidaymaker has spoken publicly for the first time of his disturbing encounter with a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared.

“…the sighting…is strikingly similar to one by a friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner. In hindsight, the retired Mr Smith said, the man’s rude behaviour should have aroused his suspicions.

“Martin Smith said: ‘The one thing we noted afterwards was that he gave us no greeting. My wife Mary remembered afterwards that she asked him: 'Oh, is she asleep?' But he never acknowledged her one way or another. He just put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year".

5. Apparently Martin Smith was able to help drawing up two detailed e-fits, despite seeing the man for a second or two in the dark with his head down:

Martin Smith: "He just put his head down and averted his eyes".

None of this in the 3 Smith statements, 26 May 2007, each of which describe the encounter as normal and the man as un-memorable.

There it is again..... Tony you are saying that Martin Smith said it was "a disturbing encounter." This is not quoted as words of Martin Smith in the article. It says he spoke for the first time of his disturbing encounter. Those could be the journalist's words!