MADELEINE MCCANN – REMARKABLE COINCIDENCES? OR PEOPLE WORKING TO A SCRIPT?

B. Not a tourist

Martin Smith

Statement, 26 May: 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”.

Goncalo Amaral talking about the statement of Nuno Lourenco

“A 40 year-old man, wearing glasses, tells the investigators that the photographer tried to kidnap his daughter in the afternoon of April 26th in Sagres. He allegedly then fled in a hired car with a woman in the passenger seat. The stranger did not look like a tourist…This report reminds us of the individual encountered by Jane Tanner in the streets of Vila da Luz on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance”.

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

Goncalo Amaral: Deceived by Nuno Lourenco into thinking that Madeleine’s abductor might be Wojchiech Krokowski  

Jane Tanner

(From an article by Paulo Reis)  [She noticed the man when the person was seen from the back]. He was wearing golden beige cloth trousers (linen type) with a ‘Duffy’ type coat (but not very thick). He was wearing black shoes, of a conventional style and was walking quickly. He was carrying a sleeping child in his arms across his chest. By his manner, the man gave her the impression that he wasn't a tourist”

C. Clothes made of ‘cloth’ or cotton

Martin Smith

Statement, 26 May:  “He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good. He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut”.

Aoife Smith

Statement, 26 May 2007:  “The individual was male…she saw his face but now cannot remember it… His trousers were smooth ‘rights’ along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen…”.

Nuno Lourenco

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


Statement, 5 May 2007: “He describes him as masculine…He wore cloth trousers and a coat/jacket of the same material which was cream coloured…”

D. Cream/beige trousers

From an article by Paulo Reis

“Miss Tanner said the alleged ‘abductor’ was between two and five metres away from her and that she had a clear view of this ‘person’ whom she described as follows: Brown male between 35 and 40, slim, around 1.70m. Very dark hair, thick, long at the neck. [She noticed  the man when the person was seen from the back]. He was wearing golden beige cloth trousers (linen type)…

Goncalo Amaral on Nuno Lourenco

He allegedly then fled in a hired car with a woman in the passenger seat. The stranger did not look like a tourist; brown hair down to his collar, wearing cream-coloured trousers…

Aoife Smith

Statement, 26 May 2007:  “The individual was male…she saw his face but now cannot remember it… His trousers were smooth ‘rights’ along the legs, beige in colour, cotton fabric, thicker than linen, possibly with buttons, and without any other decoration. She did not see what he was wearing above his trousers as the child covered him almost completely at the top”.

Peter Smith:  The description of the individual who carried the child was: Caucasian...He does not remember if he wore glasses, or had a beard or a moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details as the lighting was bad”.

Martin Smith

Statement, 26 May:  “He did not wear glasses and had no beard or moustache. He did not notice any other relevant details partly due to the fact that the lighting was not very good. He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut. He did not notice the body clothing and cannot describe the colour or fashion of the same… - 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 individuals clothing”.

Jane Tanner

Statement, 4 May 2007:  “She remembers that at about 21.10 Gerald left the restaurant to go to the apartment to check on the children. Five minutes later, the witness left…she saw Gerry talking to an Englishman called Jez…She passed by them…Meanwhile a man appeared carrying a child…She only managed to see him from the side…”

Statement, 10 May 2007:  “…there had passed in front of her a man carrying, in his arms, a barefoot child. At the time she had not paid him much attention…Only it was strange that the child had no cover (blanket) and the way the man walked, rapidly, and how he was dressed, the trousers were slightly wide their entire length, being straight. They (trousers) were as to colour, identical to "corticine" (a type of floor covering), "chino" [Chinese] style. As for the coat it was dark coloured, she was not able to specify what, seeming to be the same material as the trousers, it being a type of ‘anorak'.

Nuno Lourenco

Statement, 5 May 2007: “He describes him as masculine…He wore cloth trousers and a coat/jacket of the same material which was cream coloured. Almost the same colour to the hat he had worn previously. His shoes were dark brown: the type that need to be shined or polished.

E. Date & time stamp

Gerry McCann

Guardian, 11 April 2008 “What happened on the day Madeleine disappeared?”  

2.29pm: The last photograph of Madeleine is taken at the pool. The camera clock reads 1.29pm but the family says it was out by one hour.

Joana Morais  ‘Madeleine’s Official ‘Last Photo’’ (early 2008)   “On Thursday May 3, 2007 at 2:29pm, Kate McCann took a photo of husband Gerry and daughters Amelie and Madeleine.

We are told this on the official Find Madeleine website:

Gerry and Kate McCann have released the last photograph of their daughter before her abduction in the Algarve three weeks ago.

The picture is of Madeleine sitting by the swimming pool on the day she was snatched from her bed. Kate took the photo of Madeleine at 2.29pm on May 3 - Mrs McCann's camera clock is one hour out so the display reads 1.29pm. Less than eight hours later, before 10pm that night, Madeleine disappeared.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The disputed 'Last Photo': When was it taken? The McCann insist it was taken at 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May, a day that was chilly, cloudy, windy and with occasional rain. NOT the sort of weather for people to be out in shorts, T-shirts, sun-hats and sunglasses

There are several observations one may deduce from this information:

· The parents say Madeleine was snatched from her bed before 10pm.

· Was Kate standing in the pool when she took the photo, or using zoom and standing on the other side of the pool?

· The McCanns emphasise the fact that this photo was taken at 2:29pm and also tell us that Mrs. McCann's camera clock was one hour out with (presumably) the date stamp on the digital photo being 1:29pm.

Another mystery concerns the release of this photograph. Why release it three weeks after Madeleine disappeared? Many older photographs were released into the public domain before this one - perhaps the most important photo of all. Why the delay? Could it be because this "last photo" is a forgery? Do the McCanns want us to believe Madeleine was alive at 2:29pm for a specific reason?

Nuno Lourenco

Statement:  “The witness managed to take a picture of the vehicle which he handed over to the police, and which is now exhibited. The picture is recorded as having been taken at 18H08 on 29/04/2007. After taking the picture of the vehicle, with the date/time stamp recorded by the mobile phone, a few minutes later the couple in question left in the direction of Sagres Fortaleza…

F. ‘By the way he was carrying Sean’

Martin Smith

Statement, 20 September  “…made a statement to Portugal police in Portimao on 26th May and returned to UK. Is saying that after seeing the McCanns on the news on 9th Sept when they returned to UK he has not slept and is worried sick. 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 male seen the night Maddie went missing . He also watched ITV news and Sky news and inferred it looked like the same person both times carrying the children”.

Richard McCluskey

Statement, 12 September “Another thing which has played on my mind is the coverage of Mr McCann walking off the aeroplane holding one of his young children. The way he was holding the child over his left shoulder reminded me of the man carrying the child from the white van in Portugal. Although I could not describe the male I'd seen in Portugal because he had his back to me, it was the particular way Mr. McCann held the child that made me think. He held the child over his left shoulder with his left arm supporting the child’s weight”.


==============

ANALYSIS

The statements by Martin Smith (60% to 80% sure) and Jane Tanner (80% sure) are very unusual. I cannot ever recall having seen statements like this about a person’s identity. Usually people are either ‘sure’ or ‘not sure’. The use of percentages raises the suspicion of collusion, or working to a script.  

The phrase ‘didn’t look like a tourist' is first raised by Jane Tanner about the alleged abductor. She says she saw him about 9.15pm on 3 May 2007.  Operation Grange now say that the man seen by Jane Tanner was a man taking his young daughter back home from the night crèche, often now referred to as 'Crecheman'. Since then, a newspaper reported that Dr Julian Totman’s wife said it was her husband. Operation Grange refused to confirm this.

Then Nuno Lourenco used the same description about Wojchiech Krokowski, a man he said he'd see photographing children on Sagres beach.  (Krokowski was of course real, but Lourenco’s statement was fabricated). Krokowski's car was said by Lourenco to have been photographed on 29 April.  (whom Operation Grange say is ‘Crecheman’, and whom Dr Julian Totman’s wife is reported to have said is her husband)

Then the phrase 'not a tourist' was also used by Martin Smith, whose alleged sighting of a possible abductor was at about 10pm on 3 May 2007.

The use of a highly unusual - in fact almost meaningless - form of identification, ‘not a tourist’, by three people, different people, in three different places, is so unusual as to, again, raise the suspicion of collusion.

The Smiths had a very short space of time, in the dark, to be able to tell what material they were made of. Lourenco’s statement, given the very day after Jane Tanner’s statement, echoes their description. Lourenco, we can deduce, knew exactly who Krokowski was, and it is at least possible that the detailed description of the colour and type of material emanated from him.

Four separate people identified the colour of the trousers as beige/cream.

The evidence is overwhelming that the last ‘Pool Photo’ was not taken at lunchtime on 3 May 2007 as the McCanns claim, but on Sunday 29 April. It may be a coincidence that Nuno Lourenco says that his photo was taken on 29 April. Equally, there is also overwhelming evidence that his entire statement is a fabrication. Analyses of his statement published on the internet reveal (a) the extreme improbability of his account and (b) multiple inconsistencies.

Let us take these two issues together, then add the remarkable coincidence of the alleged sightings of an abductor Jane Tanner (reported to police during Friday 4 May) and of Wojchiech Krokowski by Nuno Lourenco early the following morning, 5 May.

These two descriptions of an alleged abductor were so similar (as we saw above) as to divert Goncalo Amaral and his investigative team into pursuing Wojchiech Krokowski across Germany and Poland, using the services of three police forces: Germany, Poland and INTERPOL.  

These facts, it is suggested, amount to persuasive evidence that those who promoted the abduction story, deliberately used Jane Tanner’s fabricated abductor and Lourenco’s false statement about Wojchiech Krokowski to deceive the Portuguese Police. It appears that Nuno Lourenco was used by these plotters to promote an entirely bogus story of the McCanns being seen with Madeleine at Sagres on Sunday 29 April or Monday 30 April. There were newspaper reports in British newspapers on 12 & 13 May 2007 promoting the story of another alleged witness who claimed to have seen the family in Sagres on the Sunday or Monday that week. Who that witness was, we do not know. If there was such an individual, it seems to have been known only to those who gave the story to the British press for that weekend’s papers.

It is suggested that something very serious may have happened to Madeleine on the Sunday and that Nuno Lourenco was dispatched by the hoaxers to take the photo of the Krokowskis’ hired car later in the week. It is further suggested that the time-stamp data were altered so as to make it appear that the photo was taken on the Sunday evening.

Finally the coincidence of two men (Martin Smith and Richard McCluskey) both contacting the police, over four months after Madeleine's reported disappearance, to say that a short scene on a TV news bulletin, showing Gerry McCann carrying his son off a plane, could make both them believe that he was the man they had seen on 3 May (Martin Smith) and 5 May (Richard McCluskey) respectively - is surely too great to claim that this is merely a strange coincidence. It seems far more likely that there was a co-ordinator somewhere who, for whatever reason, prompted both men to come up with these scarcely believable stories of having suddenly ‘recognised’ Gerry McCann.


FMcC, March 2019, for the Madeleine McCann Research Group - with thanks to the many people who made this article possible    

Hi Jill Havern, six points relevant to Abductor sighting or Hoax identity?

Due to All Tapas 7/9, Kate, Gerry refusing to return to carryout a re-enactment of 3 May 2007, Tapas Meal, when asked by Portugal PJ to attend is disturbing to say the least on a child's disappearance, Madeleine McCann, who they were on Holiday with!

In regard to the Smith family crossing paths with a Man carrying a child over his Left Shoulder and Not being recognised due to, child's Head, Body position hindering of person's face.

Four out of Six can be ascertained to relevance and especially due to the fact Both parties were actually in the same claimed vicinity, 3 May 2007.

Is it a case of either you believe the Smith Family or the Tapas 7/9 as to a certain person's whereabouts from 21.15 to 22.40 PM, GNR arrival at Ocean Club Apartment? 

Operation Grange, Crime Watch Special 14 October 2013, Creche Dad, (Mr J. Totman,6 yrs out in cold, then) walking the wrong way Home from Ocean Club Night Creche, but still has all original clothing they worn that night?

Hoax abduction plan-timings, checks, sightings on, in Madeleine's Book?

Assumptions made of "Substitute Child/ Abduction claim", Creche signing in, out, Tapas know about these days, times, apart from Police statements pact of Silence by them?  Cannot be Ruled out.

Metropolitan Police Service, DCI Andy Redwood, has managed to invent a "Moving Time Frame", from Portugal PJ, possibility of Abduction in Minutes to Forty five in One foul swoop, Creche dad, is Jane's sighting 21.15 PM is Mr J Totman at 22.00 PM Smith Family see!?

If you cannot solve the Crime, Move the Time frame to fit your thesis until proved otherwise?

Unless of Course, When Mr J Totman was spotted by Jane at 21.05 PM he was taking his Daughter to the Night Creche First?
Does the Night creche records state what times the Parents signed children in and Out of the Ocean Club Night Creche facilities?

I voted for number three because I have reservations about the testimony of Richard McCluskey in particular. I also believe Lourenco embroidered and embellished his tale.

I have no suspicions regarding the use of percentages alluded to in the statements, as IMO, it is clear that when asked how sure they were of the identification being made etc. they were asked to comment in terms of percentage certainty by the P.J. - pretty much in the same way as medics and hospital staff routinely ask patients to grade pain and discomfort on a scale of 1 to 10.
 It's not a coincidence to find innumerable patients having claimed their pain level was an 8 or a 6 or a 7 etc. etc.

Nor do I find cream or beige trousers noteworthy. Summer clothing tends to be paler hued and "Dear Hubby" for eg. has always brought at least two pairs of pants which would fit this description on holiday with him!!!

I find McCluskey's second statement most odd. By the time he made it the people he saw had long been traced, identified and eliminated. I assume he was aware of this, so why on earth approach the British police again about this matter. Why especially would he be willing to make himself look ridiculous by claiming that the now identified woman, speaking fluent Portuguese, was Kate McCann!!!
 I suspect parts of his statement were invented and appended to take the heat off Smith's Sept. claim and lesson the importance of same.
 I believe another poster has previously remarked on the interesting aspects regarding the latter part of this statement and its provenance, but I cannot recall who at the moment.

Phoebe wrote: I suspect parts of his statement were invented and appended to take the heat off Smith's Sept. claim and lesson the importance of same.

More supposition from you Phoebe?

Richard McCluskey's witness statement was taken on 12th September 2007. Martin Smith's witness statement was taken on 20th September 2007. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did McCluskey foresee Smith's revelation or did Smith base is revelation on that of McCluskey?

So glibly you jump to defend Martin Smith and his identification of Gerry McCann whilst blandly dismissing the Richard McCluskey testimony as not worthy of notice.

The McCluskey contribution added nothing to the investigation - The Smith contribution added nothing to the investigation. Stale mate?

It has been suggested in the past that the documented McCluskey statement had been manipulated, or partly forged, re-written - call it what you like, by someone in authority, probably the most ridiculous suggestion I've read in the history of this case. Keep it simple.

Working on available evidence and intelligence, I venture to suggest that both parties were persuaded to elaborate on their original statements by a third party. A third party with wealth and influence who, through the auspices of a variety of dodgy private dicks, manufactured numerous sightings across Europe and North Africa.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (you're going to love this) you say:
 
‘It has been suggested in the past that the documented McCluskey statement had been manipulated, or partly forged, re-written - call it what you like, by someone in authority, probably the most ridiculous suggestion I've read in the history of this case. Keep it simple’.
 
What – do you mean in the same ridiculous way it was suggested in the Hillsborough case? It was simple, and they simply thought that they’d get away with it.
 
I have no idea whether there was collusion pre or post statement taking in terms of the McCluskeys – I have suggested the latter but it may be both. What I do know is that no sane person makes two police statements, 4 months apart in which one of the main protagonists can only speak Portuguese in the first and is a scouser in the second.
 
There are many more indicators to manipulation post-statement:
 
-       why was the second statement taken hand written?
-       why was the first statement said to be (conveniently?) not available to the interviewing officer when he took McCluskey’s second statement? If Robinson had read it he surely would have brought up the language issue.
-       why in his covering letter to Op Task, does the interviewing officer (Stephen Robinson) not even mention the revelation that Gerry was the man McCluskey saw carrying the child, despite explaining that McCluskey is implicating Kate? Surely the first point would take priority if it had been stated by McCluskey?
-       why is the second page of McCluskey’s original hand written statement missing from the files? The first page ends after pointing the finger at Kate, the second ‘missing’ page seems to have been dove-tailed in to the comments made in the last para of Robinson’s covering letter.
-    why upon receipt of McCluskey's second statement didn't Op task ask for clarification from McCluskey regarding the language issue? (and the 'dark-skinned' male issue for that matter)

-       the McCluskey/Smith second statements are far too closely linked time wise for my liking.
 
I am not restricting my views on manipulation solely to McCluskey’s second statement – I believe there is at least a possibility that there was an epidemic going on.

Phoebe wrote:I voted for number three because I have reservations about the testimony of Richard McCluskey in particular. I also believe Lourenco embroidered and embellished his tale.

I find McCluskey's second statement most odd...I suspect parts of his statement were invented and appended to take the heat off Smith's Sept. claim and lesson the importance of same.

REST SNIPPED

@ Phoebe    It seems @ Verdi has completely disposed of your theory that McCluskey made his statement 'to take the heat off the Smiths' statement' - by simply pointing out that McCluskey made his statement BEFORE Martin Smith made his statement od 20 September. Incidentally there is no real explanation for why Martin Smith took ELEVEN days to report his astonishing claim that Smithman was really Gerry. But that shouldn't really surprise us, as he took THIRTEEN DAYS  to tell the police about his alleged sighting in the first place! - and that was only after his acquaintance Robert Murat had been made the leading suspect in the case.

So let me move swiftly on to your second claim above - namely that Nuno Lourenco 'embroidered and embellished' his tale.

Briefly, it has surely been put beyond all doubt by now that Nuno Lourenco's statement has NOT been 'embroidered and embellished' but was an outright LIE and fabrication from start to finish. [For anyone still in any doubt about this, please read the articles on Wojchiech Krokowski on the forum and note that even the great Textusa fully agrees with me on this issue].

So the question we have to ask is: Who told Nuno Lourenco to lie about a fabricated incident at Sagres claiming that Wojchiech Krokowski has nearly kidnapped his daughter?

The plain facts are these:

1. He fabricated the entire incident

2. He had at some stage that week taken a photograph of Krokowski's hired car at Sagres

3. He claimed that the date-and-time stamp PROVED that the photograph was taken on Sunday 29 April

4. He telephoned the PJ with his fabricated statement on the morning of Saturday 5 May 2007, just as Wojcheich Krokowski's plane was taking off for Berlin at the end of his week-long holiday, and

5. His description of Krokowski - 'not a tourist', cloth clothes, cream/beige in colour, 'classic shoes' etc. was so strikingly similar to that given by Jane Tanner of a fake abductor that Goncalo Amaral and the rest of the PJ were fooled into thinking that both sightings were of Madeleine McCann's abductor.

A conspiracy by Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco to lie to the PJ about a fake abductor, in the case of a missing child, is just about as serious a case of perverting the course of justice s it is possible to imagine. Both would deserve LONG prison sentences.

We are back to the question, then, of WHO orchestrated this conspiracy to deceive the PJ, and WHEN was this conspiracy devised?

It must, surely, have been well before the evening of 3 May 2007?

I have my own ideas about who might have orchestrated this, but would like to hear other members' views.


In the meantime it would be good if members could carefully read the OP, and then vote in the poll, to gauge forum opinion on the issue.   

@ skyrocket. Indeed!!! There are many allegations re. cover-up and protection of the McCanns on the part of the British police.
 Oddly, there seems to be a willingness to believe in this "second statement" allegedly made by Richard McCluskey.
 Why on earth would McCluskey contact police in September 07 about an event which had already been investigated, the protagonists identified and dismissed. Why would McCluskey make himself look absolutely ridiculous by claiming that an already identified woman, speaking in fluent Portuguese, was Kate McCann. 
Why was this extraordinary second statement hand written (and obviously not by McCluskey). 
 The files show page 1 witnessed and signed by McCluskey. On this page he has claimed to recognise Kate McCann as the distressed Portuguese-speaking woman.
The statement leaves a blank the space for recording the number of pages included in this statement. Very strange - as is the fact that we don't see where McCluskey witnessed the second page of this statement, the part containing the allegation of recognising Gerry from his descent from the plane.

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



IMO this statement has been doctored. It is very simple to amend the date - and anything else

Jill Havern wrote:B. Not a tourist

ANALYSIS

The statements by Martin Smith (60% to 80% sure) and Jane Tanner (80% sure) are very unusual. I cannot ever recall having seen statements like this about a person’s identity. Usually people are either ‘sure’ or ‘not sure’. The use of percentages raises the suspicion of collusion, or working to a script.  

I wanted to simply highlight the common use a probability in the identification range 60% to 80%. Most suspicious, as it is very clever on a legal continuum.  99%  confidence is a winning legal test, to demonstrate 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the witness did in fact identify the person in question. 60 to 80% does not support this test and could/should not be used as a valid witness claim by a prosecution. Moreover it has a sufficient percentage of  'doubt' that it could not be used to support a case for conspiratorial collusion and mis-representation against the witness. "I was obviously mistaken M'lud". It WAS dark.
I would draw a conclusion of common collusion, with legally trained direction, by both Smith and Tanner. 
Next question is; Why would they and what do they both gain from this imprecise probability qualification to their witness statements?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:What – do you mean in the same ridiculous way it was suggested in the Hillsborough case? It was simple, and they simply thought that they’d get away with it.

Hillsborough is no comparison.

To my mind, it would be simpler to lose unwanted statements down the back of the filing cabinet, or inadvertently drop it in the shredder. Or are we now going into the realms of some dastardly plot by the UK police to covertly finger Gerry McCann ?

McCluskey is a red herring, his story from beginning is ludicrous [sic]. Maybe he did witness some incident that he associated with Madeleine McCann's disappearance, maybe he didn't - it matters not in the grand scheme of things.

As I said, the latter statement has team McCann stamped all over it. It's worthless.

Cammerigal wrote:

Jill Havern wrote:B. Not a tourist

ANALYSIS

The statements by Martin Smith (60% to 80% sure) and Jane Tanner (80% sure) are very unusual. I cannot ever recall having seen statements like this about a person’s identity. Usually people are either ‘sure’ or ‘not sure’. The use of percentages raises the suspicion of collusion, or working to a script.  

I wanted to simply highlight the common use a probability in the identification range 60% to 80%. Most suspicious, as it is very clever on a legal continuum.  99%  confidence is a winning legal test, to demonstrate 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the witness did in fact identify the person in question. 60 to 80% does not support this test and could/should not be used as a valid witness claim by a prosecution. Moreover it has a sufficient percentage of  'doubt' that it could not be used to support a case for conspiratorial collusion and mis-representation against the witness. "I was obviously mistaken M'lud". It WAS dark.
I would draw a conclusion of common collusion, with legally trained direction, by both Smith and Tanner. 
Next question is; Why would they and what do they both gain from this imprecise probability qualification to their witness statements?

Excellent points.

When a judge sends the 12-person jury to the jury room, he will usually say this: "You must be sure of his guilt".

He doesn't even say '99% sure'.

On any test, the Smiths' statements are worthless as evidence.

What is curious is that out of all the percentage figures that both Jane Tanner and Marin Smith ,why did both choose 80%?

@ Verdi.  You seem to have and inconsistent attitude to your "keep it simple"mantra.
On the one hand you find it incredible that McCluskey's statement was in any way interfered with - ( by the way, "losing it" would defeat the purpose.  It was obviously intended to be seen and any similarities to the Smith claims noted, as has been achieved)

Yet, on the other hand, you believe in "keeping it simple" by suggesting that -

 A) The McCanns and their friends hid the fact of Madeleine's death from Sunday until Thursday night while behaving normally in public all week.

B) This involved getting Mark Warner staff, nannies and other guests to collude in the deception.

C) Getting Nuno Lourenco to completely fabricate a tale about a man in Sagres.

D) Getting Murat to fly home on May 1st to assist in them in the cover up.

E) Getting Mrs. Fenn to lie about hearing a child crying on Tuesday night.

F) Getting the Smith family plus children to invent their sighting.

By what stretch of the imagination could the above be described as "keeping it simple"!

Phoebe, your A to Z summary of my thoughts on this case are way off the mark.

Please stop generalizing, it gives the wrong impression.

Now back on topic please.

Phoebe wrote:@ Verdi.  You seem to have and inconsistent attitude to your "keep it simple"mantra.
On the one hand you find it incredible that McCluskey's statement was in any way interfered with - ( by the way, "losing it" would defeat the purpose.  It was obviously intended to be seen and any similarities to the Smith claims noted, as has been achieved)

Yet, on the other hand, you believe in "keeping it simple" by suggesting that -

 A) The McCanns and their friends hid the fact of Madeleine's death from Sunday until Thursday night while behaving normally in public all week.

B) This involved getting Mark Warner staff, nannies and other guests to collude in the deception.

C) Getting Nuno Lourenco to completely fabricate a tale about a man in Sagres.

D) Getting Murat to fly home on May 1st to assist in them in the cover up.

E) Getting Mrs. Fenn to lie about hearing a child crying on Tuesday night.

F) Getting the Smith family plus children to invent their sighting.

By what stretch of the imagination could the above be described as "keeping it simple"!

Points A to F are all matters of evidence.

Each one is of course debatable, because there is no absolute proof of any of them, though as regards (C) there isn't AFAIK anyone left who really believes Lourenco was telling the truth and as regards (D) Murat's sudden flight to Portugal is a matter of record and he admits that he was asked by someone to return ASAP.

I think @ Phoebe you personally believe that Madeleine died after 5.30pm Thursday 3 May and that the McCanns have covered this up.

When has a hoax of this magnitude ever been 'simple'?

Verdi wrote:Phoebe, your A to Z summary of my thoughts on this case are way off the mark.

Please stop generalizing, it gives the wrong impression.

Now back on topic please.

Hi Verdi above to answer Phoebe?

Phoebe was making a point that anything to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is anything but "Simple"!

People from the CMoMM site have been told there was No "Substitute Child" involved as part of the case, eg Creche signings in and out, then the "Supposition" of a child replacing Madeleine, on 3 May 2007, Smith Family sighting, to let Robert Murat Free after being identified by Three Tapas Friends outside Apartment 5a Ocean Club 3 May 2007!

Was Mr Robert Murat meant to be the "Patsy" as part of an "Abduction plan", contract, Martin Brunt Sky News?

Robert Murat states, "I'm just a Normal Guy, who has been caught up in the Biggest Fuck Up", was this the Jez Wilken's, Jane Tanner 21.15 PM to 22.00 PM moving time frame,DCI Andy Redwood, Crime Watch Special October 14th, 2013,"Creche Dad" walking wrong way Home from the Night Creche operated by Ocean Club,Mark Warner?

If No person had seen No Man carrying a child on 3 May 2007 in Portugal, does this mean there was No Abduction from Apartment 5a Ocean Club, No evidence of an Abductor, Operation Grange!

Mr Robert Murat is introduced to Gerry, 4th May 2007, by Russell O Brian,Stephen Carpenter 08.30 AM
Sandra Felguieras, Q to Gerry "Do you Know Robert Murat before Madeleine McCann disappeared" cough, I'm Not going to answer that, walks away on Kates arm, Clarence Mitchell, present!

Tony Bennett wrote:

Phoebe wrote:@ Verdi.  You seem to have and inconsistent attitude to your "keep it simple"mantra.
On the one hand you find it incredible that McCluskey's statement was in any way interfered with - ( by the way, "losing it" would defeat the purpose.  It was obviously intended to be seen and any similarities to the Smith claims noted, as has been achieved)

Yet, on the other hand, you believe in "keeping it simple" by suggesting that -

 A) The McCanns and their friends hid the fact of Madeleine's death from Sunday until Thursday night while behaving normally in public all week.

B) This involved getting Mark Warner staff, nannies and other guests to collude in the deception.

C) Getting Nuno Lourenco to completely fabricate a tale about a man in Sagres.

D) Getting Murat to fly home on May 1st to assist in them in the cover up.

E) Getting Mrs. Fenn to lie about hearing a child crying on Tuesday night.

F) Getting the Smith family plus children to invent their sighting.

By what stretch of the imagination could the above be described as "keeping it simple"!

Points A to F are all matters of evidence.

Each one is of course debatable, because there is no absolute proof of any of them, though as regards (C) there isn't AFAIK anyone left who really believes Lourenco was telling the truth and as regards (D) Murat's sudden flight to Portugal is a matter of record and he admits that he was asked by someone to return ASAP.

I think @ Phoebe you personally believe that Madeleine died after 5.30pm Thursday 3 May and that the McCanns have covered this up.

When has a hoax of this magnitude ever been 'simple'?

Yes, I take your point Tony but the post was directed at me personally, so I answered accordingly. Some of the content I have never commented on, some I have commented on but not in total agreement with other members and this exaggerated bit I strongly oppose....

"B) This involved getting Mark Warner staff, nannies and other guests to collude in the deception."

@ Tony Bennett. I'd be most obliged if you could cite for me where the evidence of Murat 
"admitting that he was asked by someone to return (to Portugal) ASAP." 
as stated in your post above. I have been unable to find any such admission on his part.

 All I can find from any of his statements is the following -

 (snipped from Murat's P.J. statement dated 11th July 07) -

--- During the contacts that he made with the future partners it happened that the negotiations stalled. Therefore he decided to travel to Portugal to try to progress that matter because he believed that that could only be done personally.

---- He made the travel reservation to Portugal for 01 May. This reservation was made through the Internet, having used the site [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

---- Questioned he answered that the reservation was made exactly for 01 May, being sure that he did not anticipate/advance nor anticipate/advance such a reservation.

---- The night before the trip he slept in his brother-in-law Steve's home, where his sister and nephews also were.

---- He recalls that the flight that brought him from Exeter to Faro airport was in the morning, and it was his sister Samantha who drove him to the airport"

Verdi wrote:

"B) This involved getting Mark Warner staff, nannies and other guests to collude in the deception."

@ Verdi    Leaving aside for one moment the specific roles of Catriona Baker and Charlotte Pennington in 'confirming' the alleged presence of Madeleine McCann at a 'high tea' at around 5pm to 6pm on Thursday 3 May (which Lizzy HideHo has researched so thoroughly), let me just make an observation about the role of 'other guests'.

Off the top of my head, here is a list of names of other guests who, to a greater or lesser extent, backed up the McCanns' (and Robert Murat's in once case) account of events that week:

Tapas 7

David Payne
Fiona Payne
Rachael Oldfield
Matthew Oldfield
Russell O'Brien
Jane Tanner
Dianne Webster

Others

Philip Edmonds (photo of Maddie)
Jeni Weinberger (sighting of possible abductor)
The TWO 'Jensen sisters' (sighting of Monsterman)
Dr Julian Totman (Crecheman)
Mrs Totman (Crechman)
Neil Berry (photo of Maddie)
Bridget O'Donnell (saw Maddie among other blonde girls)
Jez Wilkins (spoke to Gerry after his 'last check')
Carol Tramner (claimed she saw two blond men)
Stephen Carpenter (confirmed Robert Murat's claim of how he became a translator).

That's EIGHTEEN who have helped the McCanns' story along one way or another - and we haven't heard from any guest who doubts the McCanns' version of events.

There may be more.

Don't you think that 18 is rather a lot?

Especially as they include a Director of one of the world's largest steel companies (married into the Oppenheimers), two doctors with direct connections to the government's Porton Down establishment which researches biological and nuclear warfare, and several other doctors?

Don't you think that perhaps one or two went rather out of their way to back up the McCanns?

Hi Mr Tony Bennett, thank you for the above post.

If there has been a "Fabrication" as to what may have happened to Madeleine McCann, then any part of the Paradisio CCTV evidence could also be contrived to have put a certain amount of people into a certain time frame as to their whereabouts confirmed.

Kate was running along the Beach seen by Tapas group, Madeleine taken to the Beach,Snake, scared of Water?

Earlier on same day,Mathew, Russell decide to go Sailing on this day first and last time, then Matthew falls overboard!

Within the next Six Hours on 3 May 2007, Madeleine McCann is seen for the last time by Gerry/Kate at 20.30 pm 21.05 PM(G), Doctor Payne at 18.00 pm,3 Angels!

But there has been No Cover Up or collusion involved in Madeleine McCann's disappearance, by the "Establishment" Politicians, it has all been coincidental?

There has been No Conspiracy, but it is contrived in the minds of certain people, there is or has been a "Conspiracy Theory", that has yet to confirm the claims made!

Personally I agree with Pat Brown. The McCanns would not look at Smithman unless he was seen as the same person as Tannerman.  Now, as she says any parent of a genuinely missing child would jump on this immediately as the possible abductor but TM has drawn attention away from Smithman all along even somebody getting to the Smiths and turning them. Could this be because it was Gerry all along. I can't get away from the description by the Smith girl of the beige chinos with BUTTONS down the side.  I HAVE SEEN GEARY MCCANN ON YOU TUBE CLIPS WEARING THESE UNUSUAL TROUSERS. Why also did a snap happy couple who are forever doing bloody stupid photoshoots refuse to hand over ANY photos from that night. Could it be because Gerry was wearing his Smithman outfit then mysteriously changed clothes whilst his daughter was MISSING.

tiki wrote:Personally I agree with Pat Brown. The McCanns would not look at Smithman unless he was seen as the same person as Tannerman.  

SNIPPED

How do you explain the McCanns & Brian Kennedy contacting Martin Smith for his help just three months after Martin Smith had told the PJ that he was 60% to 80% sure he had seen Gerry McCann on the night of 3rd May?

How do you explain Martin Smith knocking up efits for the McCanns and Brian Kennedy when his belief - and his sworn evidence - was that he had seen Gerry McCann carrying away Madeleine that night?

Anyone suggesting that the Smiths really saw Gerry & Madeleine that night ought to provide clear answers to these questions

I can't get my head around that one unless they threw a lot of.money at them though I read that Martin Smith has some integrity. They do say everyone has a price and people can be bought.

Tony Bennett wrote:

tiki wrote:Personally I agree with Pat Brown. The McCanns would not look at Smithman unless he was seen as the same person as Tannerman.  

SNIPPED

How do you explain the McCanns & Brian Kennedy contacting Martin Smith for his help just three months after Martin Smith had told the PJ that he was 60% to 80% sure he had seen Gerry McCann on the night of 3rd May?

How do you explain Martin Smith knocking up efits for the McCanns and Brian Kennedy when his belief - and his sworn evidence - was that he had seen Gerry McCann carrying away Madeleine that night?

Anyone suggesting that the Smiths really saw Gerry & Madeleine that night ought to provide clear answers to these questions

Tony, the problem that I have with this is that in my opinion the e-fits do resemble Gerry McCann. 

If one was trying to mislead, surely you would make the efit look totally different?

The efits are dead spit of Gerry McCann even when shown on crime watch somebody rang and told them this which of course was ignored.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Verdi wrote:

"B) This involved getting Mark Warner staff, nannies and other guests to collude in the deception."

@ Verdi    Leaving aside for one moment the specific roles of Catriona Baker and Charlotte Pennington in 'confirming' the alleged presence of Madeleine McCann at a 'high tea' at around 5pm to 6pm on Thursday 3 May (which Lizzy HideHo has researched so thoroughly), let me just make an observation about the role of 'other guests'.

Off the top of my head, here is a list of names of other guests who, to a greater or lesser extent, backed up the McCanns' (and Robert Murat's in once case) account of events that week:

Tapas 7

David Payne
Fiona Payne
Rachael Oldfield
Matthew Oldfield
Russell O'Brien
Jane Tanner
Dianne Webster

Others

Philip Edmonds (photo of Maddie)
Jeni Weinberger (sighting of possible abductor)
The TWO 'Jensen sisters' (sighting of Monsterman)
Dr Julian Totman (Crecheman)
Mrs Totman (Crechman)
Neil Berry (photo of Maddie)
Bridget O'Donnell (saw Maddie among other blonde girls)
Jez Wilkins (spoke to Gerry after his 'last check')
Carol Tramner (claimed she saw two blond men)
Stephen Carpenter (confirmed Robert Murat's claim of how he became a translator).

That's EIGHTEEN who have helped the McCanns' story along one way or another - and we haven't heard from any guest who doubts the McCanns' version of events.

There may be more.

Don't you think that 18 is rather a lot?

Especially as they include a Director of one of the world's largest steel companies (married into the Oppenheimers), two doctors with direct connections to the government's Porton Down establishment which researches biological and nuclear warfare, and several other doctors?

Don't you think that perhaps one or two went rather out of their way to back up the McCanns?

Forgive me Tony, I didn't see your reply until today.

I feel my comment has been misconstrued - nothing unusual there. The impression I get from members who are opposed to the disappearance occuring before the night of 3rd May and/or confused about the extent of the deception, they think or believe the implication here is that the the Ocean Club and Warners management and staff plus most of (or all) the Ocean Club and Warners guests plus any number of residents in the locality, are all directly involved with a mass deception and cover-up of the truth behind Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

To this I totally disagree.

As regards the people you specificaly name, for a start I don't consider the McCanns group of friends should be included. Beyond a shadow of doubt they are part of the conspiracy, that is confirmed by their witness statements and behaviour - I include Dianne Webster here. On with the rest..

I believe Catriona Baker is heavily involved.

I believe Charlotte Pennington is a fantasist and an opportunist. She saw an opportunity to profit both financially and professionally and grabbed it with both hands. I don't believe she was directly working for the McCanns.

I believe Philip Edmonds is irrelevant. Why he was staying at the Ocean Club and the fact that he took a flight to Switzerland could be for any number of reasons. I offer no explanation about the photographs he claimed to have for the simple reason I don't know, maybe he genuinely thought he had photographs with Madeleine in the background which turned out to be nothing. Who knows? His family circumstances and work past and/or present is of no consequence.

I believe Jeni Weinberger (sighting) was a hoax cooked-up team McCann. I don't believe she was working for the McCanns, she saw an opportunity to make money so grabbed it with both hands.

The Jensen sisters likewise.

Totman didn't feature until much later in the day. I believe they were the product of Operation Grange, not the McCanns. We've been this way before, Totman has no connection with the Port Down top security enclave - he was a general practitioner with a surgery in Port Down village.

I believe Neil Berry was paid by Netflix. When it comes down to money, law and order and all morals go out the window.

Bridget O'Donnell wrote a sugary article for the Guardian in December 2007, months after she left Portugal.

Jeremy Wilkins still subject to debate.

Carole Tramner still subject to debate.

So you see, they may have helped the McCanns one way or another but that can hardly equate to the notion that all the staff, guests and local residents were involved with a cover-up to protect the McCanns. I believe most of their motives were self interest alone.

tiki wrote:I can't get my head around that one unless they threw a lot of.money at them though I read that Martin Smith has some integrity. They do say everyone has a price and people can be bought.

Thank you very much for your honest answer [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

It's utterly inexplicable, isn't it?

worriedmum wrote:



Tony, the problem that I have with this is that in my opinion the e-fits do resemble Gerry McCann.

If one was trying to mislead, surely you would make the efit look totally different?

I assume you believe that the Smiths, especially Martin Smith, were being entirely truthful, and that you believe that they did see Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine and presumably also you believe that he was rushing to the beach in a desperate bid to hide her body, at the very moment his wife and friends were raising the alarm?

If I've misunderstood you, please let me know.

That being the case, do you have any explanation as to why the Smiths, especially Martin Smith, so soon after identifying that the man they saw was Gerry, agree to help the McCanns?

tiki was honest enough to admit it was inexplicable and ventured: "Every man has his price" i.e. bribery.

We must disagree on the efits. The two efits are different from each other in multiple respects. Either efit would provide an approximate likeness to hundreds of thousands of white Western men aged between 25 and 50

If the Smiths were working for the MCanns, why have they never been asked by the McCanns to state publicly that they have changed their minds about the man they saw being Gerry.
 It makes no sense to state that the Smiths are working to aid the McCanns while they stand by their claim that the man they saw that night, carrying the Madeleine lookalike, was Gerry McCann. In continuing to stand by this claim they are pointing the finger of blame at Gerry McCann.

While searching through old Clarence Mitchell interviews ( looking for something raised by @ Mainline on another thread) I came across a BBC interview which occurred 15 months after Madeleine went missing. At 1 min 46 secs the interviewer asks Clarence -

 "What do you make of this eyewitness lead, the Irish family that Steve King's referring to..."
Mitchell immediately interrupts with -

"Well as I just said we're not gonna go into a running commentary as you said 20,000 pages. I'm not going to do that. However as Steve correctly said, there area number of independent witnesses that place Gerry very, very clearly at the Tapas bar having a meal at the time that this alleged statement was made. And also the man concerned is said to have made his views known based on seeing Gerry on television weeks later".

If the Smiths, 15 months after May 3rd '07, were indeed "working for" the McCanns, then here was the perfect opportunity for Mitchell to have responded that they had changed their opinion of Gerry being the man they saw. Instead Mitchell looks decidedly uncomfortable and tries to downplay what he refers to as an "alleged statement" - although it is clearly real and in the published files. This response does not tally with the notion of the Smiths having come aboard team McCann.

My techno skills are dire, but here are the details re. this interview.


Clarence Mitchell On BBC Discussing Those Pesky 48 Questions Kate McCann Refused To Answer
32,769 views




LIKE

DISLIKE

SHARE

SAVE







[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Published on Sep 16, 2013





SUBSCRIBE 2.4K

Join us at The Madeleine McCann CONTROVERSY on Facebook [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Follow us on Twitter [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


[size=17]SHOW MORE[/size]

Mitchell had no need to state that they had changed their opinion.   He had already cast doubt on their statements by saying that a number of independent witnesses had placed Mr at the Tapas having a meal and also that the statement was based on seeing Mr  on tv several weeks later.

Job done.

I also agree with Tony those efits could be any Tom, Dick or Harry.   Many at the time said it looked like Brunty and a reporter from Wales IIRC.

The Smiths do not need to state anything publicly imo.  Why would they?