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

by kaz 11.09.15 13:02

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!

by pennylane 11.09.15 13:18

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!

Not all tourists dress like tourists! Gerry McCann and Robert Murat both dressed very casually.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.09.15 13:20

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

by pennylane 11.09.15 13:23

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

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.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.09.15 13:40

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?]

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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)

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.

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

Have I got your hypothesis about right, please?

by **Tony Bennett** 11.09.15 13:50

pennylane wrote:
Not all tourists dress like tourists!

Well, here he is...Wojchiech Krokowski, the man whom Nuno Lourenco said tried to kidnap his daughter:

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

But he didn't report this crime to the police for SIX days, conveniently reporting it just as Krokowski's plane was taking off from Faro Airport to end his holiday, on Saturday 5 May 2007.

Lourenco said the man 'didn't look like a tourist'.

So did Jane Tanner say the same about 'her' man only a few hours earlier. 'Didn't look like a tourist'. No wonder Goncalo Amaral thought he had an early breakthrough!

And then so did Martin Smith, who took 13 days to report his sighting - but only after his son Peter wondered if he was dreaming. And he said precisely the same: 'He didn't look like a tourist'. Indeed that very phrase features strongly in the 30-second audio recording of Martin Smith's 'sighting', which has been continuously on the McCanns' website for the past 6 years and 4 months

by kaz 11.09.15 13:55

@ 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 ?

by kaz 11.09.15 14:02

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

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.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.09.15 14:06

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

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.

Yes. Usually 2 hours, in fact, but maybe 90 minutes under special conditions, notably hot weather (which this certainly wasn't).

pennylane's theory clashes in a major way with ALL 17 of the alerts by Eddie and Keela

by kaz 11.09.15 14:13

@TB
Pennylane seems to me to be right about the Smiths not mentioning anything about long hair but in a way that's even more damning for the Smiths. In their account they kept in the ' not dressed like a tourist' which as pennylane says is meaningless.( even hardy British tourists don't walk around in sleeveless vests, swimming trunks and sandals at night , especially not one from WARNERS ) , they kept the shoes and roughly the clothes but not the hair. Why would that be? Maybe they wanted to give the general description a little 'tweak' for a reason that presents itself readily to my suspicious mind.

by joyce1938 11.09.15 14:15

When we first saw e-fits it was said by someone that if you lay one picture over the other, it's the same man, did no one else see this ?joyce1938

by pennylane 11.09.15 14:19

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?

Sorry Tony I'm not very good at answering this way, and so forgive if my answers are a bit rough, and not sourced properly.

by joyce1938 11.09.15 14:21

I thought someone from tapas saw Gerry around the pool about 10pm ish? joyce1938

by pennylane 11.09.15 14:28

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 ?

I believe they were asked by the PJ if the man looked like a tourist. I've been a witness to a crime, and had to give a description of the perpetrator, and the police ask all types of mundane questions like that.

by pennylane 11.09.15 14:39

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

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.

Hi kaz,

I didn't say she died between 9 and 10. And who knows exactly what time the McCanns left for dinner.

Didn't Wilkins say he met them all at dinner at around 8:00 p.m. the evening before as he and his wife had put their child in the Creche, but decided to eat dinner in the apartment the next night (3rd).

Timelines given by the Mc's are totally unreliable (imo).

by kaz 11.09.15 15:11

Hi pennylane
According to the crèche sheets Madeleine was still alive about 5.30 ish. David Payne saw all the children alive and well at 6.30 ish. The children according to him were washed and dressed ready for bed so presumably they were in bed at 7.30 ish. If the MCC left for the TR about 8.00 the timing is still very tight for all that happened. The apartment's re arrangement to suggest abduction , getting the story 'just so' with your friends etc. I know the MCC timelines are very suspect but I'm trying to work out what time you actually think Maddie possibly met her death. What time was the commotion heard?

by pennylane 11.09.15 15:35

kaz wrote:Hi pennylane
According to the crèche sheets Madeleine was still alive about 5.30 ish. David Payne saw all the children alive and well at 6.30 ish. The children according to him were washed and dressed ready for bed so presumably they were in bed at 7.30 ish. If the MCC left for the TR about 8.00 the timing is still very tight for all that happened. The apartment's re arrangement to suggest abduction , getting the story 'just so' with your friends etc. I know the MCC timelines are very suspect but I'm trying to work out what time you actually think Maddie possibly met her death.

I totally agree kaz, it is all very tight, and (imo) they got away with it by the skin of their teeth! This is why they stayed hauled up in the apartment while others were out looking. They had no choice, they had to get their story straight. Which they never managed to do successfully, due to cobbling it together after the fact (imo).

It looks very much like the twins were sedated too, and they had to work around that. IMO the crime scene was not staged, even Maddie's bed didn't look slept in, and the revisions to their version of events are multiple. It all points to a last minute fiasco of 3 sedated toddlers, and one meets with a catastrophe while the parents were out, even after crying complaints from a previous night. And just look at Tanner's messed up story that she changed umpteen times.

This was not a premeditated crime (imho).

by **Tony Bennett** 11.09.15 16:14

pennylane wrote:
kaz wrote: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 ?
I believe they were asked by the PJ if the man looked like a tourist. I've been a witness to a crime, and had to give a description of the perpetrator, and the police ask all types of mundane questions like that.

Hallo @ pennylane, thank you very much for your very quick response to my 10-point summary of your theory, I will revert to that later when I have a bit more time.

You say: "I believe they were asked by the PJ if the man looked like a tourist". That is just speculation and it does not say this in his statement, nor can it reasonably IMO be inferred from the translation of his statement.

But what is absolutely certain from the audio summary of his statement on the McCanns' website - which MUST have been done with the active co-operation of Martin Smith (he even agreed to change the age of the man he said he saw from '40' to '34-35') - is that he and the McCanns chose to highlight this 'not a tourist' line in the audio recording.

The man voicing Martin Smith in the audio recording says:

"He didn't look like a tourist - I don't know why, maybe it was his clothes..."

The McCann Team, no doubt with Martin Smith's active help, chose to include that particular line.

And how well it emphasises one of the key features of all the Sagres Man/Tannerman/Smithman sightings - the 'warm, cloth, clothes he was wearing'.

by pennylane 11.09.15 16:53

Tony Bennett wrote:
pennylane wrote:
kaz wrote: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 ?
I believe they were asked by the PJ if the man looked like a tourist. I've been a witness to a crime, and had to give a description of the perpetrator, and the police ask all types of mundane questions like that.

Hallo @ pennylane, thank you very much for your very quick response to my 10-point summary of your theory, I will revert to that later when I have a bit more time.

You say: "I believe they were asked by the PJ if the man looked like a tourist". That is just speculation and it does not say this in his statement, nor can it reasonably IMO be inferred from the translation of his statement.

But what is absolutely certain from the audio summary of his statement on the McCanns' website - which MUST have been done with the active co-operation of Martin Smith (he even agreed to change the age of the man he said he saw from '40' to '34-35') - is that he and the McCanns chose to highlight this 'not a tourist' line in the audio recording.

The man voicing Martin Smith in the audio recording says:

"He didn't look like a tourist - I don't know why, maybe it was his clothes..."

The McCann Team, no doubt with Martin Smith's active help, chose to include that particular line.

And how well it emphasises one of the key features of all the Sagres Man/Tannerman/Smithman sightings - the 'warm, cloth, clothes he was wearing'.

Hi Tony, I tried to answer your questions, but I'm pants at articulating such things. Also I don't have the stamina you do.

You're quite right it is speculation on my part that the PJ asked Tanner and the Smiths if the man they saw on that ill-fated night carrying a child through a holiday location, looked like a tourist. Perhaps I should have said 'based on my own experience in identifying a criminal to the police, I believe they did.'

I definitely don't have all the answers, and I believe most theories can be picked apart because of the mountains of information and disinformation, and conflicting information around. Also there is a considerable amount of cherry picking that goes on. Certain things exaggerated to make a point, and others left off altogether because they don't fit a theory.

Once again, I do not believe the Smiths have lied about seeing a man carrying a child on that ill fated night. Tanner, on the other hand, I absolutely believe has lied!

by pennylane 12.09.15 11:58

@ Tony, further to post above.

from:
------------------------

Witness testimony of Martin Smith, 26 May 2007
Location: DIC Portimao

Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's shoulders to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position.

--------------------------

IMO as I stated up thread, Martin Smith was asked if the man he saw looked like a tourist (makes perfect sense to me) and I see nothing sinister in his reply. Smith and co's description is of a man with short brown hair, which does not resemble Tanner's or Sagres man (imo). Once again, we will have to agree to disagree re the Smiths.

by joyce1938 12.09.15 15:07

I am pretty sure there are, or were, a few hand drawn pics of what Tanner said she saw that night, and all were different and I think drawn by others too. She was too far away to have seen much, I believe it's been said. Is anyone here well enough in know where to find those pics, would be good for all newer folks to see them too. What went on there we just don't know. joyce1938

by joyce1938 12.09.15 15:12

Sorry, just to add to last post,Tanner was identifying the man she said she saw walking along top road, not Smiths. I think quite a no. of people could be wearing beige, and clothes that she was to have seen. What did she see, I ask? joyce1938

by **Jill Havern** 17.09.15 15:41

joyce1938 wrote:When we first saw e-fits it was said by someone that if you lay one picture over the other, it's the same man, did no one else see this ?joyce1938

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

(sorry, Tony, I'll just collect my P45 titter

)

by DaTroof 17.09.15 15:47

This is not a reasonable thing to do. It is reasonable to overlay the two efits to create an image that might be a more accurate representation of the man seen by the Smiths. If you overlay G McCann with any e-fit of a caucasian man of similar age you will get a resemblance to G McCann because he is 50% of the total. The same would apply to anyone else.

Somewhere there is an overlay of the two efits & that is interesting. Can anyone post that?

by **Jill Havern** 17.09.15 15:58

DaTroof wrote:This is not a reasonable thing to do. It is reasonable to overlay the two efits to create an image that might be a more accurate representation of the man seen by the Smiths. If you overlay G McCann with any e-fit of a caucasian man of similar age you will get a resemblance to G McCann because he is 50% of the total. The same would apply to anyone else.

Somewhere there is an overlay of the two efits & that is interesting. Can anyone post that?

Maybe that's what Joyce meant. But that's all I could find.

by joyce1938 17.09.15 16:46

I had read about the 2 efits overlayed, but I can't recall having it to go over gmac, not from what I recall. I was just surprised no one has ever mentioned, that's why I brought subject up. It was long time ago and can't recall on which site I saw it. I feel sure someone else must have seen it and now might remember? joyce1938

by Guest 17.09.15 20:09

The Daily Telegraph - 2:27PM BST 15 Oct 2013: By Alice Philipson

Madeleine McCann: two callers name man in e-fit pictures

Almost 1,000 people have now contacted Scotland Yard and BBC Crimewatch with information regarding Madeleine's abduction from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007.

More than 730 calls were made and 212 emails received as a result of the appeal shown on Monday night.

Among them were two independent callers who phoned police on Monday night with the same name for the man shown on the e-fit picture.

Crimewatch editor Joe Mather said the response was "truly unprecedented" and there were lots of calls from British people who were in Praia da Luz at the time but had not previously contacted police.

DCI Andy Redwood, who is leading the investigation said: "We have now had over 730 calls and 212 emails as a direct result of the specific lines of enquiry we issued yesterday concerning events in the lead up to, and on the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007 when Madeleine was abducted.

"330 Calls into the Operation Grange Incident Room, 400 to BBC1 Crimewatch. Detectives are now trawling through and prioritizing that material. This will take time.

"We continue to appeal for information and I will be repeating similar appeals in Holland this evening on a programme called Opsporing Verzocht, and in Germany tomorrow night Aktenzeichen XY...ungelost.

The focus of the investigation has switched to a previous suspect who was seen carrying a child around Madeleine’s age towards the beach just before 10pm.

A family from Ireland got such a good look at the man that they were able to produce two e-fit images.

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

~~~~~~

All that hype but two years down the line no apparent progress, with in excess of £10m down the proverbial and another £2m allocated for the ensuing year. The Smith sighting was common knowledge in the summer of 2007 and over subsequent years has attracted a great deal of discussion and speculation - all of which I don't doubt is watched by the McCann support network.

Why did it take Operation Grange nearly two and a half years (in addition to the preceeding four years that involved UK authorities) to wise up to the fact that Jane Tanner's nocturnal vision was but the figment of an over charged imagination (aided and abetted by external influence) and thus conclude that the Smith sighting might be of some significance? What of the response generated by the 2013 Crimewatch production, did all those calls and emails amount to nothing or is Operation Grange still in the process of ongoing inquiries relative to the overwhelming response?

Oh me of little faith..