The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!


Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Phoebe on 13.10.18 12:12

@ Tony Bennett. Earlier on this thread you stated -


@ Phoebe

Usual forum etiquette and indeed common courtesy requires that you answer any reasonable and polite question posed to you by a member before you start asking any questions of that member (and you have so far asked at least two more questions without yet answering mine).

So, hoping that forum etiquette and the usual courtesies prevail, and for the third time of asking, here again are the questions I asked  of you earlier.
         ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As is evident Tony, I acceded to your request. So now, "Hoping that forum etiquette and the usual courtesies prevail" -  I'm asking of you once again - 


How do you envision an admission by the P.J. that they were duped and mistaken in the investigation re. when the crime occurred, being an aid in any potential prosecution against the McCanns. 
 B) Do you believe that any such admission of their errors by the P.J. would  damage to the McCanns' claim that the P.J were incompetent and bungled the investigation, and, would such an admission decrease public confidence in the P.J's competence and their theory that Madeleine was not abducted.

Phoebe

Posts : 1097
Reputation : 1330
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Verdi on 13.10.18 12:52

@Phoebe

Your current line of questioning is inflammatory.   The line of thought is but another 'what if' and has no bearing on reality.

If CMoMM hopes to achieve anything, it's paramount that we adhere to 'what is' as opposed to 'what isn't'. 

Sorry to say but you're turning a worthwhile subject and the thread into a playground.  Enough now please.

The police are there for good reason - they're good at it !!!  Just leave it there.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Moderator/Researcher

Posts : 10736
Reputation : 4135
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Phoebe on 13.10.18 15:47

@Verdi wrote:@Phoebe

Your current line of questioning is inflammatory.   The line of thought is but another 'what if' and has no bearing on reality.

If CMoMM hopes to achieve anything, it's paramount that we adhere to 'what is' as opposed to 'what isn't'. 

Sorry to say but you're turning a worthwhile subject and the thread into a playground.  Enough now please.

The police are there for good reason - they're good at it !!!  Just leave it there.
How can anyone accept that the "police are there for good reason - they're good at it" while simultaneously believing they were duped!

Phoebe

Posts : 1097
Reputation : 1330
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Tony Bennett on 13.10.18 20:19

Today I had a meeting in London, and at 8.15pm I'm only half-way home having a break & an expensive medium latte at Cherwell Services.

God rested on the 7th day after his efforts in creating the universe during the previous 6 days, and told us for our own good we should observe a day of rest. Tomorrow is Sunday.

I will be back when I can and will try and answer all reasonable questions.

I noted from DougD's post some interesting comments about Kate's bruises and wondered if those could have occurred on the Sunday
avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15178
Reputation : 3095
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Ref; alarm raised

Post by willowthewisp on 14.10.18 17:22

@Phoebe wrote:
@Verdi wrote:@Phoebe

Your current line of questioning is inflammatory.   The line of thought is but another 'what if' and has no bearing on reality.

If CMoMM hopes to achieve anything, it's paramount that we adhere to 'what is' as opposed to 'what isn't'. 

Sorry to say but you're turning a worthwhile subject and the thread into a playground.  Enough now please.

The police are there for good reason - they're good at it !!!  Just leave it there.
How can anyone accept that the "police are there for good reason - they're good at it" while simultaneously believing they were duped!
Hi Phoebe,How come it is the Portugal PJ duped,did Leicestershire Police/Gold Group already know what their mission was?
At the present moment the Metropolitan Police Service have "Evidence" of electoral Fraud",yet for "Political reasons" fails to proceed along Prosecution Basis,using mealy mouthed words to lessen the events that have taken place?
Yes the same Police force operating,Operation Grange!

So there you have it, if it is "Politically Correct",the Police can proceed,but if it isn't,what do they do,shelve it ongoing,Operation Grange?
avatar
willowthewisp

Posts : 2782
Reputation : 960
Join date : 2015-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Phoebe on 14.10.18 22:19

@ willowthewisp It would n't just be the Portuguese police who would have to have been "duped" but also Mark Harrison and any other officers who supported Dr. Amaral's theory.
  However, it is ONLY the investigation led by Dr. Amaral which claims that there was no abduction. That is why I would be very wary of putting forward any claim (such as them getting the date of the crime wrong) which calls into question the competence of that investigation. Suggestions that Dr. Amaral and his team got something as basic and fundamental as when Madeleine disappeared wrong, can only lend credence to the McCanns claims of an investigation not fit for purpose, carried out by inexperienced police who were out of their depth and bungled it.

Phoebe

Posts : 1097
Reputation : 1330
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Tony Bennett on 15.10.18 17:18

REPLY TO PHOEBE:

---------------------------------- 

Phoebe

I want to raise an important issue with regard to establishing when Madeleine disappeared (and that involves when the alarm was raised re. relevance to thread). There has been a persistent effort on the part of some to promote the theory that Madeleine died much earlier in the week.

REPLY:  Here is my reply. I have to admit I am reluctant to answer your speculation, partly because it is a contrived ‘what if’ scenario you are asking us, partly because within your posts there are some woefully wrong assumptions, and partly because I don’t think your motive is a genuine search for the truth, but rather it is to undermine our work here - and in particular to scorn the work of many researchers who have over 9 years given their time and expertise to help us all get where we are.

Together with that, obvious disruptors and time-wasters like Tony Cadogan and Ruffian have teamed up with you, also not with the best of intentions. Both of these have been here before and caused trouble. And it’s not by any means the first time that embittered malcontents in another place have come here to disrupt. I have nothing but utter contempt for the people who do this and who clearly have no interest at all in what happened to Madeleine.   

Furthermore, let us get clear what would be needed if ever a prosecution against the McCanns were to be mounted. There would have to be evidence that Madeleine was dead. The cadaver dogs’ evidence is very persuasive for many, but the court would need more than that. Then it would need to be ascertained how she died. Despite this forum having hundreds, thousands, who believe that Madeleine did die in her parents’ apartment, I doubt if a single member here could say how she died.

If ever a police force could establish that Madeleine died in G5A, I suspect it would then not be too hard to prove that they (and others) were complicit in hiding, or arranging with others, to hide her body.

Even if all of this could be satisfactorily proved, there is then the question of whether either the Portuguese or British government would have the political will to go ahead with a trial. Not the least of this issues are such matters as: possible extradition procedures (lengthy), getting witnesses over from one country to another and knowing what charges could be brought – they might vary as between Portugal and Britain.     

The investigation would have to try and prove WHEN Madeleine did disappear. After all this time, I doubt this would be possible.

Even if any of those witnesses who testified to having seen Madeleine during that week now admitted being mistaken, how would this help to establish WHEN the crime occurred in the face of persistent denials by the McCanns and other McCann-supporting witnesses.

Should the police decide to proceed with pressing charges, this would involve going into court to claim a crime occurred “on or about the week of April 29th - May 3rd". This hardly inspires confidence in the police having any firm idea of what actually happened.

REPLY:  I disagree. When I was a solicitor I attended many criminal cases. It is very common indeed for the prosecution to use a phrase such as ‘on or about’ or ‘between this time/date and another time/date’. It is by no means a serious hindrance to a trial for the police to admit they do not know the exact time or even date.

In court, the McCanns and their supporters would undoubtedly stick to their version of events, up to and including Thurs. May 3rd. In this they would have no choice. The prosecution would be forced to seek to disprove, not only the Tapas 9's version and that of those witnesses who stick by their original claims re. that week, but would also have to admit in court that the P.J. got their investigation dramatically wrong…if the P.J were so incompetent that they are forced to admit that they got the date of the crime wrong.

REPLY:  Just a minute, Phoebe. Are you suggesting that if the PJ got the approximate time of Madeleine’s death wrong ,that it is in any way, shape or form due to their ‘incompetence’? I hope not.

How have they been ‘incompetent’ if, say, the McCann were not telling the truth about the Last Photo?  How are the PJ ‘incompetent’ if they subsequently established that the contradictions about the ‘High Tea’ show that Cat Baker was lying?  

The Defence would have a field day!!!!

REPLY:  No. The Prosecution would have a field day exposing all the lies, half-truths, deceits, fabricated statements and changes of story in  the case by some of the key witnesses.

How would acceptance by the P.J that they were "duped" about the date affect public opinion?

REPLY:  What exactly is the problem about admitting to the fact that a cunning series of lies, fabrications, deceits and distractions misled you?    

If the P.J were now to admit to being "duped" by the McCanns, and to having made a mistake over the date - would this increase confidence in the P.J.'s assertion that there was no abduction. I believe it would have the polar OPPOSITE effect and, instead, would increase the numbers of those who believe in the McCanns tale of an abduction, poorly investigated by bumbling police. Accepting and promoting the idea that the P.J were easily misled in this case can benefit only Team McCann, and therefore hinder achieving justice.

REPLY:  The PJ were NOT ‘easily misled’, and if I may say so this tends to give the game away about your true motive and agenda for posting here. Also see my reply earlier when I pointed out that the police would only ever prosecute this case if they had the clearest possible evidence that Madeleine died in G5A and that there was no abduction.

If anyone can show me how changing the date of the crime can, at this juncture, have a positive effect on the investigation and the pursuit of justice for Madeleine - I'm all ears!

REPLY:  My answer is that if the PJ ‘changed the date’, they would have a field day demonstrating just how deviously they were deceived.  

Kirsty Maryan states that she accompanied Madeleine (known as Maddie) on a return journey from the beach back to the mini-club and then on to the Tapas Bar for High Tea

" relative to the facts of the investigation the witness clarifies that in her daily schedule mentioned she only, on one occasion, had contact with Madeleine McCann, for about 30 minutes 'who was treated as Maddie' in that she had to substitute for her colleague, who, at that time, was responsible for the group whose name is Emma, as she had to go to the Tapas to take care of the refreshments of Madeleine's group. For this, the deponent had the charge of accompanying that group towards the beach until the MiniClub where they stayed for a few minutes, and from where they left for the restaurant, mentioned above, in order to have dinner. She clarifies that when Madeleine ate her food, her parents were close and accompanied her"

skyrocket replied

@Phoebe - I think it is pertinent to point out that Kirsty Maryan clearly states that the group she accompanied from the beach to high tea was Emma's and not Cat's. Confused employee number one perhaps.

According to Susan Owen -"Madeleine McCann's parents would come to pick her up, as with her siblings, between 17H15 and 17H30, at the location where all the children of the creche got together to have dinner in the Tapas restaurant...

skyrocket replied

Susan Owen doesn't actually state that she saw Madeleine at high tea, only that she is aware ('That she only knows that ....') that she attended and was picked up from there. The bracketed phrase has been snipped from your quote but is essential to the meaning. Further Susan's statement is another which conflicts with Shineads i.e. both Toddler2 nannies; Shinead looked after the twins; Susan, like Stacey, states that she saw Madeleine because of the twins and yet Shinead does not back this up. Therefore, I would argue that Susan is confused (or possibly pressured) employee number two.

According to Maria Jose - she saw her "during meals provided to the children at the creche which take place at the restuarant where she works" (Tapas) ....Upon questioning, she states that the last time she saw Madeleine was at approximately 16.30 on 3rd May 2007 when she was having dinner with the other children in their part of the restaurant, AS SHE DID EACH DAY OF THAT WEEK"

Now, you might believe that all these witnesses are liars or mistaken but I don't believe it.

skyrocket replied

Tapas worker Maria Jose has been covered in detail by @HiDeHo. Maria states that Madeleine attended the creche next to the tapas restaurant daily, however Madeleine attended the Mini Club which concensus has as being in the room above main reception, 5 minutes walk away. Confused employee number three.

No lying necessarily required. Not proof, IMO, that Madeleine was around at any time during the week.

The creche statements need to be read in conjunction with each other and contrasted and compared - it is the ONLY way to pick up on the many discrepancies.

Then this brings us to Cat Baker. I have yet to see the evidence that A) she was a friend of Jon Corner's daughter, and B) that she knew the McCanns before that holiday and therefore was willing to risk perjury to help them.

skyrocket replied

This is precisely why I avoid discussions like this. Our opinions are polar. I've read the creche statements numerous times; had them printed out alonside each other; put the nannies with the children they were looking after in the locations they state the clubs were in, with maps of PDL; and, sat back and thought about it - a lot.  There is no point arguing with you - you will not change my mind on this and I suspect that you are as equally dogged. That's fine.
 
My position is that there is a significant degree of doubt that Madeleine McCann, the child that is missing, attended creche all week, or even at all. There is nothing in the current PJ file release (and I have looked at all 11 000 pages!) that will change my mind on that. If further info is released which proves otherwise I am 100% fine with that also - parental statements from the other guests would be good; group club photos; photos on the catamaran; gran Susan producing the post card Madeleine made on her first day; anything concrete, but excluding Cat and Charlotte the fairy (whom I have looked in to in detail, including contacting a TV production company in NZ and administrators of Wiki).

I don't like supposition - the statements are what they are and second guessing is pointless.

I understand there are those who believe that this is a relatively simple accident, or otherwise, and parental cover up case but there is so much to suggest otherwise (IMO).

REPLY:  I would like to repeat what I said about skyrocket’s posts upthread. Whoever s/he really is, s/he brings excellent research to this forum and @ skyrocket I hope you will continue to help us with your research for a long time to come and I thank you very warmly for your contributions.

I want in addition to draw the attention of members and guests to an especially useful piece of research you did (I think on one of the SMITHMAN threads) about the amazing coincidences between the statements made by (a) Martin Smith and (b) Richard McClusky in September 2007. Both contacted the police within a few days of each other. Both claimed that they ‘recognised’ Gerry McCann from TV pictures as the man seen by each of them in Portugal with a child. Both had made very dubious ‘sightings’ of a man with a child in Portugal in May. The important factual evidence you brought to the forum on this point confirmed a deep suspicion in my mind that these two calls to the police in September 2007 were co-ordinated by someone determined to point the finger of suspicion at the McCanns. I think there was collusion - and I would make a tentative further suggestion that this was co-ordinated by someone in, or connected to, what I would call ‘the Murat Team’. Thank you again for your hard work (P.S. I have to add a light caveat. On one or two occasions I’ve not been fully persuaded by your arguments).

When I see skyrocket’s posts, I cheer. When I see Phoebe’s, I groan.            

Phoebe

@ skyrocket.  Good morning. I perfectly understand and respect your position. I'm in an almost mirror position, albeit with a different perspective! But that's fine and I believe a healthy sign of a group. I too, dislike supposition.

REPLY: Really?

For me, I need to see the evidence that Cat Baker was a friend of the McCanns before that holiday, and as yet none has been produced. She HAS to have lied (not been mistaken) if Madeleine was absent all week. For a young woman to jeopardise her whole future by lying to the police about the entire week-long events would, IMO, need a very special motivation! I would need to hear Kirsty Maryan (and indeed the others) admit that none of them knew "Maddie" well enough to positively identify her. I also would need to have it confirmed that the sailing instructors did not notice Madeleine on the day she allegedly kicked up a fuss about sailing with them. I'd need to see Raj Balu state that the photograph with him in the background was not taken on Tuesday as alleged. I'd need to see other parents, such as Carpenter, confirm that when they picked up their children from creche at the same times as the McCanns, they never saw Madeleine leave with her parent. If such evidence could be produced, I would definitely reconsider my perspective!

REPLY: I think both Lizzy HideHo and skyrocket have more than adequately dealt with your claims about the three witnesses. I will reply about Cat Baker.



1 There is evidence that Cat Baker and Chloe Corner were FB friends either as early as 2006 or perhaps well before. I have never seen in and can’t produce it. @ sharonl has some knowledge of this evidence and if you ‘pm’ her, she might be able to help you. Further. Chloe Corner is the daughter of Jon Corner, godparent to Madeleine. I will have to leave this one where it is.

2 She also corrected herself by later admitting that she had been to the Ocean Club/Mark Warner in Praia da Luz in 2006 as well as 2007. This may tie in with a comment made by Jon Corner I n2007  that he had been to Praia da Luz ‘many times before’. I do not have evidence of that beyond what forum members have told me.

3 Kate McCann speaks very warmly of Cat Baker in her book and of how they all ‘hit it off’ with each other straightaway. I am sceptical. I suspect they may have known each other before and it is at least possible that the McCanns had made an arrangement for Cat Baler to ‘babysit’ for them in the evenings.

4 The fact that Cat Baker was invited to stay with the McCanns (you’ve seen the photos) in November 2007 is another indication that there may have been a pre-existing connection between them. Remember too that Cat Baker came there in the very week when the McCanns and others were preparing for the ‘Rothley Court Summit’ of 17/18 November 2007 when the McCanns,  the Tapas 7, lawyers and PR men all met to review the ‘state of play’ in the case.

REPLY:  I freely admit that these are indications only and fall well short of any ‘proof’. Possibly someone can help is on Point 1.        

====

ETA:  I should have added that the reason I felt obliged to review all of Cat Baker’s evidence is because, as you know, several very important lines of evidence persuade me that something very serious must have happened to Madeleine McCann on Sunday afternoon or evening. That has meant looking especially at the evidence of three people in particular: Cat Baker, Pamela Fenn and the Smiths. As I have patiently tried to set out as fully as I can, I see numerous valid reasons for finding the evidence highly dubious. We also know that Robert Murat lied comprehensively to the PJ about his movements on 1, 2 & 3 May.

 

ETA 2: To our excellent Admin Team: Could you please find the thread where skyrocket posted the Richard McClusky evidence. I should be most grateful  

____________________

Kate McCann, in her book 'madeleine', page 5: "Since 3 May 2007, there has undoubtedly been much going on behind the scenes we haven't known about and perhaps never will".  Goncalo Amaral: "We will know the truth about what happened to Madeleine when the MI5 files on her case are made public".   

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15178
Reputation : 3095
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Ladyinred on 15.10.18 18:15

@TB re Skyrocket posts: possibly on this thread - 
"Poll added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?"

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14905p125-poll-added-have-the-mccanns-really-avoided-all-mention-of-the-smithman-sighting
avatar
Ladyinred

Posts : 155
Reputation : 54
Join date : 2017-11-25

Back to top Go down

McCluskey

Post by Ladyinred on 15.10.18 18:48

Also, "Richard McCluskey, I have a couple of questions for you" thread.

Sorry, I can't do links.

-------------
Added by admin: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14719-mr-richard-mccluskey-i-have-a-couple-of-questions-for-you

Many thanks ladyinred.
avatar
Ladyinred

Posts : 155
Reputation : 54
Join date : 2017-11-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by skyrocket on 15.10.18 19:32

Tony - thanks. Like other members here I do what I can, when I can, with one aim in mind.


@Ladyinred (many thanks) has pinpointed the thread you were trying to find. I've copied the post that I think you are referring to below.



https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14905p50-poll-added-have-the-mccanns-really-avoided-all-mention-of-the-smithman-sighting?highlight=smithman


Re: POLL added: Have the McCanns really avoided all mention of the Smithman sighting?

 by skyrocket on Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:24 am

Please bear with me, this is a long one.
 
Firstly, if you aware that you are lying when you make a police statement, and the police discover this, you are liable for prosecution quite independently of the case you gave the statement for.  So yes, it is a serious matter.
 
I agree with @TB that there are clear contradictions in Martin Smith’s statements. Also, the family sat back and did not report the sighting despite the fact that, as far as they were aware in the immediate aftermath of 3 May, a probable paedophile had carried off a young girl. They were quick to compare the child to Martin Smith’s granddaughter, which one would have thought would have triggered an emotional reaction encouraging them to speak to the PJ sooner rather than later. It’s not the sort of situation that normal people under normal circumstances would not want to get involved in immediately, IMO.
 
But then there is the problem of the family seeming genuine. Not knowing Martin Smith the man, or the possible motivation that he might have to involve himself and his family in some hoax sighting, it is difficult to judge whether it is likely or not. I’m sure there must be circumstances when a man would do it.
 
Martin Smith, his adult son and his 12 year-old daughter returned to Portimao to give statements. But prior to that we are told that Martin Smith’s wife Mary and Peter Smith’s 13 year-old son, Tadgh, had already given statements in Ireland. So we have 2 young teenagers involved – Martin Smith’s daughter and his grandson. Apart from the obvious moral aspect of involving the children in a hoax (as several others have posted)  - I agree, how on earth could they be relied on not to slip up in any interviews?
 
Mary Smith seems to have been a reluctant participant – she didn’t return to Portugal to give a statement. Would she be reluctant if she believed she might be helping to find a snatched child? Her comments regarding her feelings for the McCanns and their loss suggest that she does not believe they are involved but she doesn’t contradict her husband’s apparent later comments about Smithman/Gerry McCann. In fact, we are told by Martin Smith that his wife agrees that the man they saw carrying a child in Luz looked like the man they saw on the news carrying a child off a plane (GM).
 
There is also the strange correlation with the McCluskey statement, which I believe is somehow relevant. I started a thread on McCluskey but I have looked at it again since then and there is more, and I think it should be included on this thread.
 
Timeline:
 
I’ll try to précis the details (jump down to the bottom of the list if it's too much!):
 
-       Early hours of 5 May McCluskey and wife, returning to their hotel on foot, report a sighting in Alvor (several miles east of PdL);
-       They see a white flatbed van stop at a junction; a dark skinned/haired male, alight from the vehicle and then stagger up the main road away from them, carrying a young child;
-       A blonde woman then appears from the side road and approaches the van;
-       The McCluskeys cross over, note the number plate and try to speak to the apparently distraught woman who only seems to speak Portuguese;
-       A car stops and a Portuguese male gets out. He speaks to the woman and the McCluskeys and agrees to phone the police;
-       The McCluskeys return to their hotel across the road;
-       Later McCluskey (still concerned), asks the night porter to phone the police and 2 English speaking officers turn up. He tells them what has happened and they deal with the situation; the event is therefore logged on the night by the Portuguese;
-       The McCluskeys return home to the North East of England and both give statements to the Northumbria police, on the 9 May. In his statement McCluskey clearly states the above details re: the man/woman he saw and spoke to i.e. dark skinned male; Portuguese speaking female;
-       On the 9 September, the McCanns return to the UK and there is wide TV coverage;
-       On the 12 September McCluskey contacts the Northumbria Police and returns to give a second hand written statement (different officer who apparently is unable to access a copy of the first statement);
-       On the 13 September, said officer, Stephen Robinson 423 sends a copy of McCluskey’s second statement to Op Task in Leicester by recorded delivery;
-       At the same time, the interviewing officer sends an email outlining in detail the salient points of McCluskey’s second statement. He sends this to Op Task and a copy directly to dic.portimao – the British Police officers in Portugal;
-       In this email, the officer states that McCluskey now believes that the woman he met on the side of the road was in fact Kate McCann. No mention is made of the fact that in his initial statement McCluskey says that the woman didn’t speak English - the officer is probably unaware of this;
-       In the email, the officer clearly repeats McCluskey’s description of the male getting out of the van and staggering up the road, he then only goes on to say that McCluskey is now stating that the woman was Kate McCann BUT makes no mention of McCluskey also believing the male to be Gerry McCann;
-       In the PJfiles there is only copy of page 1 of McCluskey’s 2 page, 12 May, hand written statement – this ends before there is any mention of Gerry McCann or the walk down the plane steps carrying a child being a memory trigger;
-       However, in the files there is an apparent transcript of the entire 12 May statement, in which McCluskey firstly states that he now believes that the blonde woman was Kate McCann AND secondly, that that the dark skinned, staggering male was Gerry McCann. His reasoning for the latter being based on the news coverage of the McCanns returning to the UK, and the way in which GM carried Sean off the plane. Seem familiar?
-       This transcript of the 12 May statement is not reproduced on a statement form (MG11), however that might be standard procedure. We have no way of knowing for sure whether this was the statement sent from the Northumbria Police Officer, Stephen Robinson, on the 13 May, or whether the statement has been added to with the extra comments about McCluskey now recognizing the man he saw as Gerry McCann (other than the obvious discrepancy between the statement and the officer’s accompanying email);
-       On the 19 September, DC John Hughes 433 of Op Task sends a copy of PC? Stephen Robinson’s 13 September email (with an accompanying 2 line comment which is unreadable) through to dic.portimao (despite the fact that they had already been sent a copy on 13 September by Robinson). At the bottom left of the email page it reads 20-09-2007;
-       On 20 September Martin Smith contacts the Leicestershire Police by phone. He tells them (Lindsay Long, Holmes Indexer) that he has been watching coverage of the McCanns return to the UK and he is now 60% to 80% sure that the man he saw carrying a child at around 10pm on 3 May was Gerry McCann. He asks for a call back from Op Task;
-       On 20 September, Lindsay Long contacts DC John Hughes of Op Task by email and informs him about Martin Smith’s phone call and his request for a call back;
-       A few hours later on the 20 September (we are not told whether a return call is made), DC John Hughes copies the information regarding Smith to Stuart Prior in Portimao. At the bottom left of the email page it reads 20-09-2007;
-       On 27 September, Inspector Ricardo Paiva of the PJ phones Martin Smith about his contact with the British Police on 20 September. Smith tells Paiva that he would be happy to return to Portugal to collaborate with the police there;
-       On the 28 September, a Laura Bailey-Brown (no further details included) sends an email to Op Task in Leicester. This is the only dated copy of the 12 September transcribed McCluskey statement, containing the comments about Gerry McCann. The only other detail shown in this email is the ‘subject’ on the email bar, which states ‘please forward to Portugal as requested by DS 548’;
-       On the 1 October, DC John Hughes 443, forwards the McCluskey email on to dic.portimao (the English Police in Portimao);
-       On the 8 November, the PJ ask the Irish Police (via the Irish Police liaison in Madrid) to re-interview Martin Smith in Ireland. They send questions they would like asked;
-       On 23 January 2008, Martin Smith is re-interviewed by Sergeant Liam Hogan of the Detective Branch in Drogheda, County Lough;
-       On 30 January, Hogan writes a covering letter for the Smith interview. In it he states that Smith has been approached by Kennedy, on behalf of the McCanns, to work on a fotofit, but that Smith has refused to take part;
-       The above letter from Hogan carries 2 send dates of 2 Februeary/19 February on the bottom right
-       The Hogan letter and second Smith statement were sent to the PJ on the 19 February via the Irish Force liaison officer, Bernard Gaffney in Madrid, although dic.portimao also seems to have had copy at this time/date.
 
So, on the 5 May we have McCluskey (in Alvor) seeing a dark-skinned male, staggering, carrying a child, and a blonde, Portuguese speaking woman. On the 12 September after, he says, seeing ‘media coverage’ of the investigation (no mention of GM descending the plane but does come 3 days after the Mcs return on the 9 Sept), McCluskey makes a second statement in Ireland, which is hand written.
 
The detailed email sent on to OP Task and the British Officers in Portimao by the interviewing officer on the 13 September, only says that McCluskey now believes the blonde woman he saw was Kate McCann. No mention is made at all of McCluskey believing the dark-skinned man was Gerry McCann. No mention of seeing GM coming off the plane. However, the statement then later passed on to the PJ contains this second claim, apparently from McCluskey. The first dated copy of this full transcript is 28 September.
 
It is significant, IMO, that the last shown communication between Op Task in the UK and dic.portimao (British Police in Portugal) regarding the second McCluskey statement made on 12 September and the (extended) transcript including discussion of Gerry McCann descending the plane carrying Sean, comes the day before the Irish Police receive a phone call from Martin Smith saying that he had seen the media coverage of the McCanns return to the UK and of Gerry descending the plane carrying Sean.
 
Note the heavy involvement of one DC John Hughes 433 of Op Task in the handling of both the McCluskey and Smith second statements – he was dealing with the information from both men within 1 day of each other, 19/20 September.
 
Where did the claim that the man seen carrying a child by McCluskey looked like Gerry McCann come from? Why didn’t Sergeant Hogan make a point of this in his email when surely it was highly significant, more so than the strange claim about the Portuguese speaking woman being KM? Why is the second page of his hand written statement omitted from the files?
 
Is it just co-incidence that Smith second statement and the (doctored?) McCluskey second statement both contain almost identical worded claims about Gerry McCann?
 
Refs:
 
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RI_Mc.htm
 
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
 
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 713
Reputation : 687
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Phoebe on 15.10.18 20:44

@ Tony Bennett. Thank you for your reply.
The "evidence" forming your theory that Madeleine died as early as Sunday of that week is in no way NEW. It is evidence gathered under the watch of Dr. Amaral and his team, and like you, he has had over 11 years to ponder over it. He has not changed his opinion re. the date of Madeleine being seen alive for the last time. Ergo - he is either too dense to see what amateur sleuths can or he has reasons for sticking to his guns! Is there any other interpretation.
 Please do not try to suggest that Dr.Amaral has lost interest in this case - his many appearances and interviews (as recently as the 10th anniversary) belie that claim. It is also certain that, as a professional whose reputation has been questioned so, he would not make such appearances without being sure of his opinion and keeping abreast of developments in the case. He was asked on TV if he had considered an earlier death and replied that yes, of course he had but that he was confident in his conclusions. His opinion differs form yours and that is that!
One matter on which we agree is that there is never likely to be a prosecution against the McCanns. There IS no new evidence, unless a body is found or a confession is forthcoming. 
 In the absence of this the McCanns will only ever be tried in the court of public opinion.
The McCanns & Co plus their tame MSM smear machine spent much time and effort discrediting Dr. Amaral and his theory that there had been no abduction. Any claim that he was "duped" and is less astute than a bunch of amateur sleuths who have looked over his OWN work and spotted HIS mistakes can ONLY be a boon for that smear campaign. 
I see you have suggested it is I who query Dr. Amaral's competence. No Tony, I have ABSOLUTE FAITH in Dr. Amaral, and reject claims that he was "duped". it is YOU who is claiming this and by extension, placing a question mark over his investigative abilities. Good detectives do not get duped or fooled and do not stay duped or fooled!

I don't care a fig who agrees with my posts or doesn't and have never "teamed up" (as you put it) with anyone else. Such puerile behaviour belongs in a playground. Nor do I take any interest in forum wars or whatever they are. 
I have seen at first hand the reaction of ordinary members of the public when I put it to them that perhaps Dr. Amaral was wrong about when Madeleine died, and their reaction is enough to make me painfully aware of how much this kind of "loose talk" lends credence to the McCann claims of incompetent police work.
Finally, I asked a legal friend of mine about your claims re. the prospects of seeking a prosecution with the P.J now deciding on a different date. He thought I was taking the mickey!
 Yes, "on or about" does occur when police are not sure of when exactly a crime occurred. But, "on or about" a 4 day period is ludicrous. He also reminded me that in cases using "On or about" this has ALWAYS been the police's position. They don't claim a date, stick to it for over 11 years of investigation and then sheepishly say they got it wrong.
No prosecution service would entertain they idea of proceeding to trial with such a mishandled investigation.
I'm sorry you doubt my motivation. It is, and always has been, the pursuit of justice for Madeleine McCann.

Phoebe

Posts : 1097
Reputation : 1330
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Crackfox on 15.10.18 23:01

I don't have a strong opinion on the date of Madeleine's disappearance but I tend to think it was within 24 hours of the 'abduction'. That said I do not think the testimony of the Smiths is credible for one reason and it's nothing personal - mistaken identity is the single most common reason for wrongful conviction, according to statistics from The Innocence Project. Identifying a suspect after images of said suspect have been released is even less reliable.  Prisons are full of people who have been put away by the testimony of people like Mr Smith who are well meaning but unreliable. Ditto McClusky.

Crackfox

Posts : 111
Reputation : 49
Join date : 2018-01-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Crackfox on 15.10.18 23:04


Crackfox

Posts : 111
Reputation : 49
Join date : 2018-01-12

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by sharonl on 15.10.18 23:21


____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron
avatar
sharonl


Posts : 5302
Reputation : 933
Join date : 2009-12-29

http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Phoebe on 16.10.18 0:28

@ skyrocket. I think it is one of your old posts which I have been trying to find (based on your post above. If I'm correct, sorry, but I actually mis- recalled it as coming from Bluebag!) I know I found it fascinating at the time. I have always been very suspicious of the McCluskey statement! Nothing about it made any sense at all. One thing I don't understand (and forgive me if I'm being dense here, very long day and cross-eyed from work) but above you ask -

Where did the claim that the man seen carrying a child by McCluskey looked like Gerry McCann come from? Why didn’t Sergeant Hogan make a point of this in his email when surely it was highly significant,



I didn't think Sergeant Hogan had anything at all to do with the McCluskey statement. As I understand it Hogan was based in Drogheda Garda Station and McCluskey gave his statement in the U.K. where he lived. Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious! 

As for your final question -

"Is it just co-incidence that Smith second statement and the (doctored?) McCluskey second statement both contain almost identical worded claims about Gerry McCann?"


 I don't believe it's an innocent coincidence at all.

Phoebe

Posts : 1097
Reputation : 1330
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by skyrocket on 16.10.18 7:46

@Phoebe - morning and thanks.



You did and you didn't miss something - and yes, I did make a mistake! Apologies.



The argument is 100% correct but in the summary where I wrote Sergeant Hogan it should read Stephen Robinson 423 as it does in the main body of the post. You are right, Hogan was in Drogheda (Smiths) and Robinsonin Northumbria (McCluskey). I need a proof reader!

'Where did the claim that the man seen carrying a child by McCluskey looked like Gerry McCann come from? Why didn’t Sergeant Hogan (should read Stephen Robinson) make a point of this in his email when surely it was highly significant, more so than the strange claim about the Portuguese speaking woman being KM? Why is the second page of his hand written statement omitted from the files?'
avatar
skyrocket

Posts : 713
Reputation : 687
Join date : 2015-06-18

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Phoebe on 16.10.18 10:35

@ skyrocket. Thanks for clarification.  roses No prob. It's all too easy to put down the wrong name when one actually means another and is posting a lot of info and various names. I've done it too!
 I find the body of your research most interesting. Surely the British police (who shared McCluskey and Smith's language) noticed how odd such verbatim claims were - especially when McCluskey's claims were so ridiculous  and nonsensical! I think this was one of the first ever things I was spurred to post about. I too, suspect that the McCluskey statements may not be all quite "kosher".

Phoebe

Posts : 1097
Reputation : 1330
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Phoebe on 16.10.18 16:50

On May 25th 2007 the McCluskey "sighting" was ruled out as having no possible relevance to Madeleine's disappearance. Inspector  F Antonio reported that the couple and the child seen by McCluskey had been traced and eliminated. 

P.J. files 5 - 5 APENSOS V, Volume V Pages 1123-1125

The McCluskey sighting was long proven to have no connection to the Madeleine case It was as dead as the proverbial dodo. So. why did the U.K. police, (who must have known it had been thoroughly investigated and ruled out)  seek to resurrect this pointless sighting the following September, just as the Smiths were revealing their belief in Smithman having been Gerry!

Phoebe

Posts : 1097
Reputation : 1330
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Tony Bennett on 16.10.18 17:29

@Phoebe wrote:On May 25th 2007 the McCluskey "sighting" was ruled out as having no possible relevance to Madeleine's disappearance. Inspector  F Antonio reported that the couple and the child seen by McCluskey had been traced and eliminated. 

P.J. files 5 - 5 APENSOS V, Volume V Pages 1123-1125

The McCluskey sighting was long proven to have no connection to the Madeleine case It was as dead as the proverbial dodo. So. why did the U.K. police, (who must have known it had been thoroughly investigated and ruled out)  seek to resurrect this pointless sighting the following September, just as the Smiths were revealing their belief in Smithman having been Gerry!
Er...because McClusky actually 'phoned them...

...either entirely on his own volition...

...or because somebody prompted him to do so...

...quite possibly Robert Murat or someone connected to him...

____________________

Kate McCann, in her book 'madeleine', page 5: "Since 3 May 2007, there has undoubtedly been much going on behind the scenes we haven't known about and perhaps never will".  Goncalo Amaral: "We will know the truth about what happened to Madeleine when the MI5 files on her case are made public".   

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15178
Reputation : 3095
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by Phoebe on 16.10.18 19:22

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Phoebe wrote:On May 25th 2007 the McCluskey "sighting" was ruled out as having no possible relevance to Madeleine's disappearance. Inspector  F Antonio reported that the couple and the child seen by McCluskey had been traced and eliminated. 

P.J. files 5 - 5 APENSOS V, Volume V Pages 1123-1125

The McCluskey sighting was long proven to have no connection to the Madeleine case It was as dead as the proverbial dodo. So. why did the U.K. police, (who must have known it had been thoroughly investigated and ruled out)  seek to resurrect this pointless sighting the following September, just as the Smiths were revealing their belief in Smithman having been Gerry!
Er...because McClusky actually 'phoned them...

...either entirely on his own volition...

...or because somebody prompted him to do so...

...quite possibly Robert Murat or someone connected to him...
I think you miss my point. The police must have known McCluskey's sighting had been dealt with and therefore, any later eureka moments he had about it were totally irrelevant to Madeleine's disappearance. His contacting them is not the issue. His sighting was long done and dusted, investigated and explained. The investigation had  confirmed the names of the people he saw and all their details months earlier. Why did the U.K police resurrect a dead end sighting which had already been discarded. There was no lead to follow. Whether McCluskey decided the man he saw looked like Gerry or Elvis the police already KNEW WHO HE WAS, so it was irrelevant who McCluskey thought he looked like.

Phoebe

Posts : 1097
Reputation : 1330
Join date : 2017-03-01

Back to top Go down

Re: Why was the alarm raised at the time it was? Any ideas

Post by sar on 16.10.18 23:41

@Tony Bennett wrote:Today I had a meeting in London, and at 8.15pm I'm only half-way home having a break & an expensive medium latte at Cherwell Services.

God rested on the 7th day after his efforts in creating the universe during the previous 6 days, and told us for our own good we should observe a day of rest. Tomorrow is Sunday.

I will be back when I can and will try and answer all reasonable questions.

I noted from DougD's post some interesting comments about Kate's bruises and wondered if those could have occurred on the Sunday
+1 TB!

sar

Posts : 894
Reputation : 259
Join date : 2013-09-11

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum