KEY TO FINDING MADDIE Madeleine McCann abductor walked right past Irish family carrying the missing girl minutes after snatching her, US expert says

NickE wrote:A FAMILY of Irish holidaymakers in Portugal probably walked right past a man carrying the Madeline McCann moments after he snatched her, a US expert claims.

@ NickE    Thank you for posting this.

This Press Association article is actually much worse than I feared - though I (more or less) predicted this would happen.

TEN REASONS WHY MARK SAUNOKONOKO'S PODCASTS ARE GOING ABSOLUELY NOWHERE

Below are 10 statements from the Press Association (PA) report. I appreciate that some of it is the PA's own words, but the vast majority are clearly based on the contents of Saunokonoko's podcast.

I will refrain from making any observations on what is said specifically about 'Smithman', because I know that some on here still cherish the belief that Gerry McCann (or a decoy) really was carrying Madeleine that night and was seen by the Smiths.

I will merely observe that if there is any merit in the hypothesis that something very serious happened to Madeleine on Sunday, then the Smiths' evidence is a total irrelevance. If they ever did see anyone at all (which I have doubted ever since that fraudulent  BBC CrimeWatch programme in October 2013), then it must have been someone else.  

Looking at the ten points below, does anyone on here seriously believe that Jane Tanner saw anyone at all that Thursday night?

Looking at the ten points below, does anyone on here seriously believe that Dr Julian Totman was carrying his 2-year-old daughter back through the chilly, dark streets at 10pm, in light pyjamas, with no blanket or covering, and without a buggy? Seriously!

Looking at the ten points below, does anyone on here seriously believe that Gerry McCann saw Madeleine alive at 9.15pm on Thursday 3 May?

And so on. 

Please someone tell me if they do seriously believe any of those three statements. 

Yet these things are precisely what ordinary readers will take away from this Saunkonoko podcast and PA report.

I would go further and suggest that Saunokonoko has (possibly unwittingly) lent himself to broadcasting 9 podcasts that will take the listening public AWAY from all the crucial facts we have all been unearthing here on CMOMM.

It could even be that this is a deliberate attempt to draw people away from e.g. Richard Hall's films.

The acid tests of these podcasts will be to see how he tackles issues such as the Last Photo, the Make-Up Photo and the complete absence of credible and independent evidence that Madeleine was seen alive after Sunday.    

To add insult to injury, the PA piece even has a graphic showing the location of the Totmans' apartment - clearly inviting the readers to think it really was Totman carrying his slightly-clad daughter back home in the chilly dark:

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

As stated before, I will be overjoyed if I am proved wrong.
 

TEN CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENTS BY SAUNOKONOKO / PA

1   A family of Irish holidaymakers in Portugal probably walked right past a man carrying  Madeline McCann moments after he snatched her.

2   Criminal profiler Pat Brown believes the mystery man seen with a small motionless girl in his arms is the key to solving the case.

3   The Smith family say they saw a man carrying a girl in pink pyjamas…The dark-haired man was spotted by the Smith family  carrying a girl down a dark street about 150 metres from the beach.

4   Brown said: “This is the number one issue about the whole case and I’ve stuck by this for years and I stand by it today.”

5   On the same night, Jane Tanner, a friend of Madeleine’s parents, Kate and Gerry, also saw a dark-haired man.

6   What makes the Smith sighting very interesting is that Jane Tanner is a friend, and the Smith sighting is a bunch of people that have no clue who the McCanns are.

7   Jane  was on her way to check on her kids at 9.15pm when she saw the man near Kate and Gerry’s apartment.

8   Gerry was nearby with pal Jeremy Wilkins having just looked in on Madeleine.

9   Julian Totman walked near the McCanns’ apartment holding his two-year-old girl after getting her from a creche at the resort…his wife Rachel said: “My husband had told the local police it could be him but we didn’t hear anything for years.”

10   Kate and Gerry McCann were eating tapas with friends when Madeleine disappeared from their apartment.

Firstly, there is absolutely NO evidence of where the make-up photo was taken. It has attracted speculation, nothing more.

Saunokonoko's podcasts thus far have made it perfectly clear that the Jane Tanner sighting of the "abductor" has been dismissed by ALL police investigators and is considered totally irrelevant to Madeleine's disappearance in terms of any search for an "abductor". Tannerman is dead and buried!
 More importantly, he has reiterated that the McCanns have NOT been cleared of having played a role in their child's disappearance. 
Most of us have long been aware of the Press support for the McCanns version of events, so it is unsurprising that they will try to muddy the waters about Saunokonoko's podcast.  Both the press and the BBC did this when claiming Martin Smith had retracted his identification of Gerry. That is not a reason to stop trying to get the facts out there in as many ways as possible.

What is fascinating (IMO) is how selective the pro- McCann media seems to be about what it reacts to. For example, it went to great lengths to try to depict Martin Smith as having changed his mind about seeing Gerry, when Smith hasn't changed his opinion. It seems to be trying desperately to suggest that Pat Brown believes there was an abductor to be seen by anybody.
 It appears that certain information being made public is most unwelcome and merits attacks of disinformation, denial and attempts to confuse or distract. Has Richard Hall ever experienced this reaction from the pro McCann powers that be. (question mark not working, sorry)
 Has the Press or other media tried to rubbish Richard's films and their theories about an earlier death - in print or any other medium. I can't recall seeing such any such attacks by pro McCann media on his "Madeleine" films, but I may have missed them.

I've posted in the 'podcast' thread, but pulled this bit out from PB right at the end of the podcast.

I really have no idea what point she is trying to make, unless the cutting and editing have just taken it completely out of context, especially in the light of her 'retraction' demands.

PB: ‘This is the number one issue about the whole case & I’ve stuck by this for years and I stand by it today, there were two people sighted, the McCanns, if their child was kidnapped have heard two things. They could….(recording cut?) one man seen at the Tanner sighting, then there’s the Smith sighting. Both of them are possible, both of them could have been the guy carrying away their child, in other words (another cut?) there’s a least a 50/50 chance that the Smith sighting is a real sighting, at least a 50/50 chance.’


When did she actually say this, with Tannerman having been completely discredited ages ago?

Doug D wrote:I've posted in the 'podcast' thread, but pulled this bit out from PB right at the end of the podcast.

I really have no idea what point she is trying to make, unless the cutting and editing have just taken it completely out of context, especially in the light of her 'retraction' demands.

PB: ‘This is the number one issue about the whole case & I’ve stuck by this for years and I stand by it today, there were two people sighted, the McCanns, if their child was kidnapped have heard two things. They could….(recording cut?) one man seen at the Tanner sighting, then there’s the Smith sighting. Both of them are possible, both of them could have been the guy carrying away their child, in other words (another cut?) there’s a least a 50/50 chance that the Smith sighting is a real sighting, at least a 50/50 chance.’


When did she actually say this, with Tannerman having been completely discredited ages ago?

The point P.B. was making, as I infer, was that the McCanns claimed Tanner had seen a man carrying a child and they were assiduous in promoting this "possible sighting of Madeleine being abducted" and insisting it was investigated. 
The Smiths ALSO claimed to have seen a man carrying a lookalike Madeleine at around 10 p.m., yet the McCanns shunned and ignored THIS sighting. They did not insist the P.J. looked into it and failed to use it until circumstances forced them to, much later. 
 IF Tanner had been telling the truth, and IF there were two men carrying a child, then surely anxious, innocent parents would have insisted BOTH sightings were investigated. There was a 50-50 chance that Madeleine had been "abducted" either by Tannerman or Smithman (since these were the ONLY sightings of a man with a child (who could have been Madeleine) in pyjamas . The McCanns however, ONLY promoted the Tanner sighting and ignored the other Smith option for as long as possible.

Phoebe wrote:

The McCanns however, ONLY promoted the Tanner sighting and ignored the other Smith option for as long as possible.

On this very last point, the following should be said.

The McCanns did NOT 'only promote the Tanner sighting'. They promoted dozens of others, including, many suggest, a number that their detectives clandestinely promoted.

It is absolutely true that they did not promote the Smith sighting at first.

I suggest this is because they knew it was from a hostile source.

There is evidence that Gerry McCanns may have known Robert Murat before April 2007 (the "I'm not going to comment on that" interview where he coughed, turned away from the interviewer, and avoided contact).

We KNOW that Martin Smith knew Robert Murat. According to his son Peter, they'd "known each other for years and met several times".  

As I've said many times, the clue as to why Martin Smith on 20 September 2007 implicated Gerry McCann as the abductor, yet barely three months later began working for Brian Kennedy, Kevin Halligen, Henri Exton and the McCanns (December 2007), is because there appear to have been two rival camps, each with a different interest in what had really happened to Madeleine. I have documented this elsewhere on the forum.    

All was sorted out over dinner at 'Salsalito', Burgau, home of Ralph & Sally Eveleigh. on the evening of 13 November 2007.

There, the Eveleighs invited over for dinner Sally's sister, Jennifer Murat, and her nephew, Robert Murat. Murat was lawyered up, with his brief Francisco Pagarete at his side. Also invited was one of Britain's wealthiest businessmen, jehovah;s Witness-supporter Brian Kennedy. He was lawyered up too, with controversial lawyer and top Freemason Edward Smethurst his right-hand man.

The bread and olives were served, along with copious quantities of fine wines, probably obtained at 'mate's rates' from the Symingtons. Tapas after tapas followed. The wine flowed. The souond of more bottles being uncorked could be heard. Finally, coffee and After Eights.

By the time the After Eights box was empty, Kennedy & Smethurst had clinched a deal with Murat & Pagarete.

Handshakes all round.

Here was the deal:

1  Smethurst promised that libel actions on behalf of the McCanns and Murat would be undertaken and would be successful. Each would get hundreds of thousands of pounds.

2 The McCanns and the Tapas 7 would cease pointing the finger at Murat, as they had been doing since 13 May, when Jane Tanner 'identified' Murat as the abductor, being 'adamant' it was him

3  Murat would instruct his friend Martin Smith to co-operate with a plan to draw up images of the man allegedly seen by the Smiths, and do everything the McCanns wanted him to.

On 3 January 2008, the world first learnt that Martin Smith had been contacted by Brian Kennedy. Ever since then, Martin Smith has co-operated in helping the McCanns, the BBC, the British mainstream press and the world's media, in every way he could - in order to promote a man he probably never saw. He approved efits in September 2008. Whether he and his family ever took part in drawing them up is IMO very doubtful.

These efits could only be released to the public once the powers-that-be had found out a convincing way of eliminating Tannerman. DCI Andy Redwood and his secret service advisers had probably hit on this plan in late 2012.

But instead of simply calling a press conference and showing the efits as early as possible to the public, the elite schemers thought it would be far better to try and get 7 million people to watch a film, in order to set in concrete in their minds that Operation Grange really really were seriously looking for an abductor.

So the BBC and the Met Police each spent over £1million doing just that. Their programme also included a reconstruction which bore little relation to the actual facts.

The Crimewatch McCann Show succeeded brilliantly.

There were even some who seriously thought that Operation Grange had planned this programme to 'catch' the McCanns.

Even more bizarrely,there are some who, five-and-a-half years later, still believe this   

Martin Smith has co-operated in helping the McCanns, the BBC, the British mainstream press and the world's media, in every way he could 

I don’t really think so. But you could say he helped the McCanns look guilty by saying he was 80% sure that the man he saw was Gerry McCann.

@TonyBennett How do you know about this deal you describe? Is it educated guesswork?

@ Tony Bennett. 
As I stated above there were only two sightings which claimed to have seen a man carrying a child that night - Tanner's and Smiths'.

 The McCanns did not promote the Smith sighting as soon as they learned of it. They did not ask the police to follow it up and made no attempt to contact the Smiths immediately in order to find out more. Instead, they pushed the Tanner sighting and hounded an O.C. cleaner who had seen nothing of any abductor. 

There is NO evidence that the McCanns knew Murat before May 4th. A throwaway, snarky remark ( "I'm not going to comment on that" ) from Gerry  is NOT evidence!!! 

 Martin Smith did NOT know Murat other than by sight. Your quoting from a tabloid rag which claims to have spoken to the Smiths (who had given NO interviews) is just tabloid rubbish! The P.J. would have quickly discovered if Smith knew Murat (other than by sight) and are satisfied they did not know each other. 

No one knows what happened at the meeting between Murat's lawyer and the McCanns' legal team in Salisito. You are merely surmising what you believe happened. 
Murat continued to be the number one suspect long after the Smiths said the man they saw was not him. This statement from Martin Smith in no way exonerated Murat as a suspect or proved that he could not have been involved in the "abduction"

There is NO evidence whatsoever to support your extraordinary claim that Martin Smith cooperated with team McCann or the BBC in order to convey the notion that he had altered his opinion that it was Gerry McCann he had seen that night. In fact, there is ONLY evidence to the absolute contrary!!
Martin Smith's claim that the man he saw was Gerry McCann is impossible to dress up as anything other than DAMAGING to the McCanns. It is SO damaging that the BBC had to lie about it!

U
All things considered, including location and timing, description, what is know about gait recognition e.g. from lightpoint studies, the chances of this being a random stranger with a pale skinned girl like that at that time in that location, the way the McCanns have treated this (as noted by Phoebe), and this fitting the window in the timeline almost exactly, I think it extremely likely that the Smiths saw Gerry carrying away Madeleine’s body. (don’t forget Bayes theorem)

The Last Phot is not evidence that Madeleine died earlier in the week or that the Smiths are lying or that they are not credible witnesses. 

I also wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the man Jane Tanner says she saw might also have been Gerry - not as an actual sighting of anyone, but a kind of subconscious projection. It is peculiar that she said she didn’t see Gerry and Wilkins. Fiona Payne remarked how Jane Tanner was shaking. It may be that at some level JT realised exactly what had happened and the sighting she reported was a way for her subconscious to deal with that emotional trauma - she may in a sense have been describing Gerry carrying a dead Madeleine away from the apartment.  (The way she describes the child being held seems very telling). 

I think JT did actually see Gerry and Wilkins, but in a sense she couldn’t see both Tannerman and Gerry talking to Wilkins. I was struck by how JT was in the reconstruction. Gerry unconvincingly insisted that he and Wilkins were on the other side of the road. JT didn’t play along, but seemed unable to make a stand and broke into tears. Maybe that night after the disappearance Tannerman was a way for her subconscious to speak the truth that JT didn’t feel strong enough to confront - she was shaking - that’s an extreme reaction indicating extreme stress. I’m not sure, I wouldn’t rule that out. I don’t believe she was simply lying from the start.

Phoebe wrote:Firstly, there is absolutely NO evidence of where the make-up photo was taken. It has attracted speculation, nothing more.

For goodness sake, why do so many people confuse EVIDENCE and PROOF. . . The evidence in the make up picture would suggest it was taken somewhere nice and warm, with a sunny climate. The evidence in the make up picture would suggest it was NOT taken somewhere cold and chilly.

 It is an elementary ERROR to confuse evidence and proof, and it undermines everything else you have to say.

Dannz said: "I also wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the man Jane Tanner says she saw might also have been Gerry - not as an actual sighting of anyone, but a kind of subconscious projection".

Hahahahaha! You are quite within your rights to believe ridiculous far fetched theory if you want to. That is the nature of open minded discussion. Didn't you wrongly imply someone else might believe it was an alien abduction? Yes, you did, but that time you were making a weak attempt at character assassination.

Phoebe:
 
There is NO evidence that the McCanns knew Murat before May 4th. A throwaway, snarky remark ( "I'm not going to comment on that" ) from Gerry  is NOT evidence!!! 
 
Dannz:
 
I also wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the man Jane Tanner says she saw might also have been Gerry - not as an actual sighting of anyone, but a kind of subconscious projection.
 
Well that’s all sorted then!!!!!!!!

The JimbobJones wrote:Dannz said: "I also wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the man Jane Tanner says she saw might also have been Gerry - not as an actual sighting of anyone, but a kind of subconscious projection".

Hahahahaha! You are quite within your rights to believe ridiculous far fetched theory if you want to. 

Would you clarify why you think it is ridiculous and far fetched. Is it that you do not accept the science on memory and phantom recollective experiences; see e.g.The Memory Illusion: Remembering, Forgetting and the Science of False Memory by Dr Julia Shaw. (She is a forensic psychologist as well as one of the leading academics in the field of memory science).
 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Memory-Illusion-Remembering-Forgetting-Science/dp/184794762X/ref=nodl_

Or is it that it seems far fetched to you that Jane Tanner might have experienced the kind of stress conditions which give rise to false memory? 

There are several things of note:
- As seen in the reconstruction, JT is vulnerable to social pressure, exhibiting stress and and emotional response.
- There was social bonding between the T9.
- FP remarked on JTs extreme reaction that night and how she was shaking.
- JT did not immediately report this, but did so after a delay and around the time she was shaking.
- she describes seeing “a stranger” rather than “a man”
- she sees this stranger exactly at the moment she passes / ceases to see Gerry (and emphasised that)
- There is uneven rich detail in her description.
- the way the child was held is peculiar and consistent with how a dead child might be held.
- the account she gives doesn’t add up if taken as objective observation.
- there is no reason to suppose that JT did not see through the McCanns staged story, albeit this may have been repressed.

This indicates a strong possibility that JT’s sighting may have been a false memory. Dismissing this out of hand as “ridiculous” does not refute this and instead suggests that you may not be aware of relevant research in the field of memory science.

Didn't you wrongly imply someone else might believe it was an alien abduction? Yes, you did, but that time you were making a weak attempt at character assassination.

I was making the point that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  It was not an attempt at character assassination.

The game is up, Mr Saunokonoko, after you posted this tweet this morning:


@ MarkSaunokonoko
12 March 2019
Is this sighting the key to the Madeleine McCann mystery? Watch video and see e-fits
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
pic.twitter.com/KPRndNDhtL

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

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

What messages does this tweet send?

I suggest it sends the following messages:

1  I am going to promote the Smith sighting in my podcasts

2  In this respect I am faithfully following in the steps of the BBC and Operation Grange, who made it "the centre of our focus"

3  I am going to focus on something bad happening to Madeleine after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May

4  I am going to go with the suggestion of Textusa and Pat Brown and others that the Smiths really saw someone and that it was Gerald McCann. Or maybe the abductor

5  I am not going to tell people that the Last Photo was probably taken on the Sunday

6  I am not going to discuss the absence of credible, independent witnesses to Madeleine being alive after Sunday

7  I am not going to deal with the articles by Dr Martin Roberts suggesting that Madeleine's actual pyjamas were held up at two press conferences on 5 & 7 June 2007    

8  I am prepared to publicise as genuine two efits of two different-looking people, possibly not drawn up by the Smiths at all but concocted by Henri Exton, former Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5, which were withheld first by the McCanns, then by two police forces, and finally held up for 9 months by the BBC and Operation Grange in order to promote a TV programme with a fraudulent reconstruction of events and an invented Crecheman

9  I have set my face against all the wealth of evidence in the films of Richard Hall and on the CMOMM forum

10  I am not going to touch the obvious high-level cover-up by the security services and orchestrated from the Prime Minister downwards and will maintain that Madeleine probably died from nothing more than a tragic accident after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May.

Mark Saunokonoko works for the mainstream media. He and his employers have told us in advance that none of the podcasts will in any way suggest that the McCanns had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any mainstream media outlet to suggest that Madeleine was not abducted and that the McCanns have something to do with Madeleine's disappearance and have knowledge of what really happened.

The focus will be on the dodgy Smithman sighting and I think we can be certain that none of the mountain of doubts about the authenticity of the Smiths' evidence will be aired in his podcasts.

Focusing on the 'reality' of the Smithman sighting destroys all the claims made on here that something very bad must have happened to Madeleine on the Sunday.

Dannz wrote:I also wouldn’t rule out the possibility that the man Jane Tanner says she saw might also have been Gerry - not as an actual sighting of anyone, but a kind of subconscious projection. It is peculiar that she said she didn’t see Gerry and Wilkins.

Jane Tanner witness statement - 4th 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, to go to her apartment to see whether her daughters were OK. At this moment she saw Gerry talking to an Englishman called Jez whom they had got to know during the holidays. They played tennis with him.

Jane Tanner wintness statement - 10th May 2007

JT left the restaurant 5 to 10 minutes later to check on her own daughters. On way to the apartment noticed Gerry McCann chatting with Jez whom he had met playing tennis.

Jane Tanner rogatory interview - 8th April 2008

And then Gerry was there, he was talking to Jez WILKINS in the road, well they were sort of, as I went by.

Doug D wrote:Well that’s all sorted then!!!!!!!!

No, far from it. Jane Tanner’s sighting should be properly assessed by a forensic psychologist with expertise in memory science, such as Dr Shaw.  

If this was a false memory, it might at most prove Jane Tanner’s conviction (at some level) that Gerry took Madeleine’s body from the apartment.  It does show he did that.

Tottman coming forward is already fishy and in any case doesn’t fit the direction.

What it does mean is that any similarity between Smithman (or Smithmen) and Tannerman does not imply collusion by the Smiths with the McCanns as some may suppose.

@Tony Bennett.  I am astonished at how much you are able to read into that tweet. 

Focusing on the 'reality' of the Smithman sighting destroys all the claims made on here that something very bad must have happened to Madeleine on the Sunday

The claim that something very bad must have happened to Madeleine on the Sunday is unsound as already shown. Focusing on reality is good and sensible.

Dannz wrote:The Last Phot is not evidence that Madeleine died earlier in the week or that the Smiths are lying or that they are not credible witnesses.

As I've suggested to you before, you really need to thoroughly read through the subject matter to understand what leads forum research and analysis to reach particular conclusions, taking into consideration that many forum members are professionals in the field of criminology and associated fields.

You seem very reluctant to take my advice, you plunge in at the deep end to engross yourself in support of a few known forum adversaries, with post upon post of verbose negativity which leads nowhere. This forum performance compounds my thoughts as to why you are here - not for Madeleine McCann, that much is apparent.

The moon is made out of blue cheese some say - but I very much doubt it.

This does not require a response.

Dannz wrote:@Tony Bennett.  I am astonished at how much you are able to read into that tweet. 

Focusing on the 'reality' of the Smithman sighting destroys all the claims made on here that something very bad must have happened to Madeleine on the Sunday

The claim that something very bad must have happened to Madeleine on the Sunday is unsound as already shown. Focusing on reality is good and sensible.

Give it a rest Dannz - it's getting very tedious.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Thanks for that. I phrased it badly - I meant she doesn’t see them at the time she makes the sighting of the stranger. As I said:

“she sees this stranger exactly at the moment she passes / ceases to see Gerry (and emphasised that)”


As I recall, she said that in the reconstruction rather than in one of her statements.