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

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.

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  

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".

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: ]https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10328p20-foi-act-request-19-sep-2014-met-police-meetings-with-authors-anthony-summers-robbyn-swan = 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 

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?

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

pennylane wrote:

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

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?

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.

kaz wrote:One thing
amongst others that the Smiths and Jane Tanner agreed on was that the man  was not dressed like a tourist. . In Jane's words, ''  they weren’t the sort of clothes I’d expect somebody on a MARK WARNER holiday to, they was, I can’t think of the material, I tried to describe this before, but sort of a cottony material but baggy”. Just wonder what sort of clothes a MARK WARNER holidaymaker would be expected to wear. Presumably the Smiths realised they had it all wrong with their man '' not dressed like tourist '' but then proceeded to finger Gerry McCann who was just that. ......................a tourist!

pennylane wrote:

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!"

Tony Bennett wrote:

pennylane wrote:

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!"

You have still got me puzzled, @ pennylane:

You are now saying:

"I believe they found her body after the first 9:20 commotion was 'overheard!'"

'They' found her body AFTER 9.20pm??

Again, I'd be really grateful if you could explain that

pennylane wrote:

Witnesses heard a commotion way before the 10:00 alarm was raised. Around 9:20 ish.  I believe the Mc's thought she was missing and were looking for her, but found her shortly afterwards.

pennylane wrote:

Not all tourists dress like tourists! 

kaz wrote:@Pennylane

If Madeleine died early between 9 and 10 on the THURSDAY evening and her body quickly found and removed by the McCanns, how do you account for the cadaver odour? I was under the impression...that the body needs to be 'in situ' for at least 90 minutes for the 'scent' to develop.

Tony Bennett wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Witnesses heard a commotion way before the 10:00 alarm was raised. Around 9:20 ish.  I believe the Mc's thought she was missing and were looking for her, but found her shortly afterwards.

Ah! OK, I can see where you're coming from now. Thanks very much.

So to expand your theory, it runs like this:

1. Gerry does his check at 9.05pm/9.10pm, then sees Jez Wilkins, has a little chat with him, and returns to the Tapas bar to resume his dinner and drinks. [If you say those two witnesses are both lying/wrong, then Gerry left Madeleine alive, according to your theory, at about 8.30pm?]  

Do we know if he was entering or leaving the apartment when he ran into Jez?  Re G leaving M alive at 8:30..... this can't be established.  Perhaps he thought she was, but never checked

Also,,

2. There is a 'commotion', sufficiently noisy, then, for some at least of the Tapas 7 to hear it.

Possibly

3. You do not say what the commotion is about, or who was causing the commotion. Do you have any ideas?

A couple heard a commotion and also a chef did.  I believe a couple heard them calling Maddie?

4. You say that the McCanns, for some reason (what reason?), think Madeleine might be missing.    

Because they can't find her.

5. They immediately go up to their apartmemt (say 9.20pm or 9.25pm, not 10.00pm as has always been stated) and to their horror find that Madeleine is dead.

Like I said, I think their story was backfitted, and who went where at what time is a mystery to all.

6. Gerry says: 'I must go and hide her body immediately'.

 He had an instant choice to make due to sedation and neglect, and the fact that they had been calling her name, so they feared people had overheard them.

7. At about 9.50pm/9.55pm he leaves Apartment G5A and walks through the streets of Praia da Luz carrying Madeleine's body.

Yes.


8. He is seen by the Smiths but by no-one else.

Yes.

8. He hides Madeleine's body somewhere - such a good hiding place that neither the police nor any search parties find it the next day (or indeed any other day)

Yes, and they moved her later.

9. Having done that he walks/runs back to the Ocean Club in time to report Madeleine missing at the Ocean Club reception at about 10.30pm. Again no-one sees him making this journey.

Yes

10. Madeleine died between 8.30pm and 9.25pm on Thursday 3 May. 

I have no idea what time Maddie died that evening, as I have no idea what time she was put to bed or how often she was checked on. Also I don't know exactly what the McCanns got up to  For all we know they visited another apartment before going to dinner.   I mean do we really know what happened before dinner?

Have I got your hypothesis about right, please?

kaz wrote:@ pennylane
''.....................Not all tourists dress like tourists!  Gerry McCann and Robert Murat both dressed very casually.............''AGREED

So the description is not worth the paper it's written on  but knowing that,  it's strange don't you think  how both  Smith and Tanner independently  thought  it was worthy of a mention ?

kaz wrote:@Pennylane


If Madeleine died early between 9 and 10 on the THURSDAY evening and her body quickly found and removed by the McCanns, how do you account for the cadaver odour? I was under the impression............................please correct me if I am wrong ..................that the body needs to be 'in situ' for at least 90 minutes for the 'scent' to develop. She was apparently alive and well at 8.30 ish when the MCC left for dinner at the tapas restaurant.