Where could "Smith-man" have been heading? (OR: Was there ever a "Smith-man"?)

GEROME THE GNOME wrote:Does anyone know where on 25th of april street Serge Malinka(The man whose car was torched and the word "talk" written on the pavement) lived? as that was the location of the Smith sighting.

ChippyM wrote:

GEROME THE GNOME wrote:Does anyone know where on 25th of april street Serge Malinka(The man whose car was torched and the word "talk" written on the pavement) lived? as that was the location of the Smith sighting.

hello Mr Gnome  ,

I wondered about Malinka too as his house was very near the church. He was investigated and in his statment to  police he said,     "--- With specific reference to the 03 May 2007, the witness confirms to have woken up at his parents' home, between 9 and 10am, having followed his normal professional activity, which is the service and repair of computers. He does not recall which customers were visited, since anything that occurs daily is registered in his MDA. 
--- Also he does not recollect having lunch that day. He knows he got home by 18H00. He dined with the family and stayed in his room for the rest of the night, using the computer for games, Messenger, internet and may have carried out some repairs to the equipment of a client. "

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SERGEY-MALINKA.htm


Police thought he had nothing to do with the dissapearance...although I wonder if being alone in his room is a water tight alibi. I would presume the police would have checked it out properly.

Châtelaine wrote:

aquila wrote:It's common sense time folks.

A three year old goes missing and instead of everyone in a holiday group getting off their arses and running (we know how athletic they are) they sit down and write a timeline.

It really is that simple for me. At this most horrific moment a collective decision was taken to write things down instead of looking.

***

Common sense indeed, aquila.
* it was most important to re-write the script of that evening [Smithman/Tannerman]
* there was no importance to look for her, as they knew ...

IMO, of course

Châtelaine wrote:

aquila wrote:It's common sense time folks.

A three year old goes missing and instead of everyone in a holiday group getting off their arses and running (we know how athletic they are) they sit down and write a timeline.

It really is that simple for me. At this most horrific moment a collective decision was taken to write things down instead of looking.

***

Common sense indeed, aquila.
* it was most important to re-write the script of that evening [Smithman/Tannerman]
* there was no importance to look for her, as they knew ...

IMO, of course

thetruthbeknown wrote:it is rather bizarre..to even be thinking of writing a 'timeline' at a time when a child of one of a party has gone missing. speaking as parent, even if a 'non-close' friend, or even a parent I hadnt even spoken to before that moment in time....the last thing on my mind would be thinking of doing a timeline...bizarre

Truthandjustice wrote:

thetruthbeknown wrote:it is rather bizarre..to even be thinking of writing a 'timeline' at a time when a child of one of a party has gone missing. speaking as parent, even if a 'non-close' friend, or even a parent I hadnt even spoken to before that moment in time....the last thing on my mind would be thinking of doing a timeline...bizarre

True. One of my kids went missing at the zoo (big open space one) and I kept looking, informed staff etc etc but kept looking till I found him.  I would not have gone and sat down and waited....why?

Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007 (Adrian Sheratt)

Jambo wrote:Hello! 

Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years

The new prime suspect was first singled out by detectives in 2008. Their findings were suppressed. Insight reports
The Sunday Times Insight team Published: 27 October 2013
Comment (0) Print
Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007Madeleine disappeared from the Praia da Luz resort in May 2007 (Adrian Sheratt)
THE critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.

The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008.

It contained crucial E-Fits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard.

A team of hand-picked former MI5 agents had been hired by the McCanns to chase a much-needed breakthrough in the search for their missing daughter Madeleine.


Click to enlarge
10 months after the three-year-old had disappeared from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz, and the McCanns were beginning to despair over the handling of the local police investigation. They were relying on the new team to bring fresh hope.

But within months the relationship had soured. A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public. Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy.

They found that it contained new evidence about a key suspect seen carrying a child away from the McCanns’ holiday apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared.

This sighting is now considered the main lead in the investigation and E-Fits of the suspect, taken from the report, were the centrepiece of a Crimewatch appeal that attracted more than 2,400 calls from the public this month.

One of the investigators whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough.

The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief.

Their report, seen by The Sunday Times, focused on a sighting by an Irish family of a man carrying a child at about 10pm on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine went missing.

An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.

Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.

A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.

Kate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authoritiesKate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authorities (Adrian Sheratt) Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence.

It was immediately clear that two sightings of vital importance had been reported to the police. Two men were seen carrying children near the apartments between 9pm, when Madeleine was last seen by Gerry, and 10pm, when Kate discovered her missing.

The first man was seen at 9.15pm by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, who had been dining with them at the tapas bar in the resort. She saw a man carrying a girl just yards from the apartment as she went to check on her children.

The second sighting was by Martin Smith and his family from Ireland, who saw a man carrying a child near the apartment just before 10pm.

The earlier Tanner sighting had always been treated as the most significant, but the Oakley team controversially poured cold water on her account.

Instead, they focused on the Smith sighting, travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw. Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes.

The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008 (Adrian Sheratt) The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.

The potential abductor seen by the Smiths is now the prime suspect in Scotland Yard’s investigation, after detectives established that the man seen earlier by Tanner was almost certainly a father carrying his child home from a nearby night creche. The Smith E-Fits were the centrepiece of the Crimewatch appeal.

One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said.

The detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never released by the McCanns. But an artist’s impression of the man seen earlier by Tanner was widely promoted, even though the face had to be left blank because she had only seen him fleetingly and from a distance.

Various others images of lone men spotted hanging around the resort at other times were also released.

Nor were the Smith E-Fits included in Kate McCann’s 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight “key sightings” and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most “crucial”. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist’s impression. The Smiths’ were the only exception. So why was such a “crucial” piece of evidence kept under lock and key?

The relationship between the fund and Oakley was already souring by the time the report was submitted — and its findings could only have made matters worse.

As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.

There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.

The McCanns were also understandably wary of Oakley after allegations that the chairman, Kevin Halligen, failed to pass on money paid by the fund to Exton’s team. Halligen denies this. He was later convicted of fraud in an unrelated case in the US.

The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.

He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.

“[The report] was hypercritical of the people involved . . . It just wouldn’t be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because . . . the newspapers would have been all over it. And it would have been completely distracting,” said the source.

A statement released by the Find Madeleine fund said that “all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary” and had been passed to Scotland Yard.

It continued: “Throughout the investigation, the Find Madeleine fund’s sole priority has been, and remains, to find Madeleine and bring her home as swiftly as possible.”

Insight: Heidi Blake and Jonathan Calvert

StraightThinking wrote:Following this morning's bombshell news, is there anyone on the planet who still thinks that the Smith sighting is either irrelevant, or didn't happen?

StraightThinking wrote:Following this morning's bombshell news, is there anyone on the planet who still thinks that the Smith sighting is either irrelevant, or didn't happen?

PeterMac wrote:

I think you still can argue that it may be irrelevant, and was suppressed because they wanted to focus on Tannerman to "prove" abduction.

StraightThinking wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

I think you still can argue that it may be irrelevant, and was suppressed because they wanted to focus on Tannerman to "prove" abduction.

Fair point PeterMac, but that would put a huge emphasis on a sighting (Bundleman) that in all probability didn't exist, what a dangerous game to play

PeterMac wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

I think you still can argue that it may be irrelevant, and was suppressed because they wanted to focus on Tannerman to "prove" abduction.

Fair point PeterMac, but that would put a huge emphasis on a sighting (Bundleman) that in all probability didn't exist, what a dangerous game to play

I think it can be argued that both are, or may be, irrelevant, though Tannerman was used to convey the possibility of abduction, even though when they worked it out they had left far too little time.

I still tend to the view that M died 2/3 during the night, leaked fluids, was cold and stiff in the morning, was taken away in the blue bag during the afternoon during the convenient 2 or 3 hour gap caused by the Achilles Tendon injury - which miraculously healed before the evening session.  Cleaning, washing stained pyjamas, and all the rest is done by K, the cleaners are turned away, and the cleaning rags or kitchen paper and any other soiled items are taken out during the afternoon run along the beach, which involves going past several sets of bins.

susible wrote:I'm also reluctant to believe that the death occurred earlier, because the abduction charade was such a shambles, I honestly think that if they'd had more time to plan it, there wouldn't have been the inconsistencies, problematic timelines etc

Also Snr Amaral's thesis places the 3rd as being the day of the potential accident, due to the independent witnesses at the creche etc, and whilst I agree that the creche records were a bit of a disaster and the nannies didn't really know who their charges were, allowing for a substitute child in the creche, that would have been a very risky strategy had one of the nannies realised that the child signed in as Madeleine, was not her at all.  And of course, children of that age group can be quite vocal, so could easily say my name is not Madeleine etc, whereas a much younger child would not be able to, but the age group for Madeleine would easily be able to self-identify.

And of course there was the 9.30 -9.40 hullaballoo witnessed by the Carpenters and the tapas staff who notices that the group had all left the table except for DW.

Whilst I realise that this does not leave much time for the plan to be acted out, I have always thought that the entire sequence of events was a result of a panic reaction, which would certainly account for the inconsistencies in the tapas groups statements and timelines and Gerry inadvertently being seen by the Smiths as he frantically tried to spirit his daughter away from the apartment.

And now we know that the McCanns tried to bury the Smith sighting, I think that probably gives a good indication that Smith did see Gerry that night.

Hicks wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

I think you still can argue that it may be irrelevant, and was suppressed because they wanted to focus on Tannerman to "prove" abduction.

Fair point PeterMac, but that would put a huge emphasis on a sighting (Bundleman) that in all probability didn't exist, what a dangerous game to play

I think it can be argued that both are, or may be, irrelevant, though Tannerman was used to convey the possibility of abduction, even though when they worked it out they had left far too little time.

I still tend to the view that M died 2/3 during the night, leaked fluids, was cold and stiff in the morning, was taken away in the blue bag during the afternoon during the convenient 2 or 3 hour gap caused by the Achilles Tendon injury - which miraculously healed before the evening session.  Cleaning, washing stained pyjamas, and all the rest is done by K, the cleaners are turned away, and the cleaning rags or kitchen paper and any other soiled items are taken out during the afternoon run along the beach, which involves going past several sets of bins.

That all makes sense. The only stumbling block for me is Mrs Carpenter hearing someone calling out Madeleine's name around 9.20/30.

Hicks wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

I think you still can argue that it may be irrelevant, and was suppressed because they wanted to focus on Tannerman to "prove" abduction.

Fair point PeterMac, but that would put a huge emphasis on a sighting (Bundleman) that in all probability didn't exist, what a dangerous game to play

I think it can be argued that both are, or may be, irrelevant, though Tannerman was used to convey the possibility of abduction, even though when they worked it out they had left far too little time.

I still tend to the view that M died 2/3 during the night, leaked fluids, was cold and stiff in the morning, was taken away in the blue bag during the afternoon during the convenient 2 or 3 hour gap caused by the Achilles Tendon injury - which miraculously healed before the evening session.  Cleaning, washing stained pyjamas, and all the rest is done by K, the cleaners are turned away, and the cleaning rags or kitchen paper and any other soiled items are taken out during the afternoon run along the beach, which involves going past several sets of bins.

That all makes sense. The only stumbling block for me is Mrs Carpenter hearing someone calling out Madeleine's name around 9.20/30.

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:

Hicks wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

I think you still can argue that it may be irrelevant, and was suppressed because they wanted to focus on Tannerman to "prove" abduction.

Fair point PeterMac, but that would put a huge emphasis on a sighting (Bundleman) that in all probability didn't exist, what a dangerous game to play

I think it can be argued that both are, or may be, irrelevant, though Tannerman was used to convey the possibility of abduction, even though when they worked it out they had left far too little time.

I still tend to the view that M died 2/3 during the night, leaked fluids, was cold and stiff in the morning, was taken away in the blue bag during the afternoon during the convenient 2 or 3 hour gap caused by the Achilles Tendon injury - which miraculously healed before the evening session.  Cleaning, washing stained pyjamas, and all the rest is done by K, the cleaners are turned away, and the cleaning rags or kitchen paper and any other soiled items are taken out during the afternoon run along the beach, which involves going past several sets of bins.

That all makes sense. The only stumbling block for me is Mrs Carpenter hearing someone calling out Madeleine's name around 9.20/30.

So why the conflict over timelines. Wouldn't it be clearer, less questions, less confusion? no half open doors. More like Madeline was there at 9:30. I forgot to lock the door, she was gone at 10:00.

Note SY say the McCannes are not suspects. It is very strong. not "we are not discounting any possiblities". I notice the polititians are being very careful with their words

thetruthbeknown wrote:

Hicks wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

I think you still can argue that it may be irrelevant, and was suppressed because they wanted to focus on Tannerman to "prove" abduction.

Fair point PeterMac, but that would put a huge emphasis on a sighting (Bundleman) that in all probability didn't exist, what a dangerous game to play

I think it can be argued that both are, or may be, irrelevant, though Tannerman was used to convey the possibility of abduction, even though when they worked it out they had left far too little time.

I still tend to the view that M died 2/3 during the night, leaked fluids, was cold and stiff in the morning, was taken away in the blue bag during the afternoon during the convenient 2 or 3 hour gap caused by the Achilles Tendon injury - which miraculously healed before the evening session.  Cleaning, washing stained pyjamas, and all the rest is done by K, the cleaners are turned away, and the cleaning rags or kitchen paper and any other soiled items are taken out during the afternoon run along the beach, which involves going past several sets of bins.

That all makes sense. The only stumbling block for me is Mrs Carpenter hearing someone calling out Madeleine's name around 9.20/30.

I was reading the carpenter statements yesterday. I picked up on that part, and also that she couldnt detect whether it was a call of 'urgency'...on a personal view I think an 'urgent' call would have been quite unforgetable, and noticable...so possibly a call of trying to rouse? Maybe at that point realising that she couldnt be roused?? Just a stab in the dark there from me, im sure those that have read more would have different views?

susible wrote:I'm also reluctant to believe that the death occurred earlier, because the abduction charade was such a shambles, I honestly think that if they'd had more time to plan it, there wouldn't have been the inconsistencies, problematic timelines etc

Also Snr Amaral's thesis places the 3rd as being the day of the potential accident, due to the independent witnesses at the creche etc, and whilst I agree that the creche records were a bit of a disaster and the nannies didn't really know who their charges were, allowing for a substitute child in the creche, that would have been a very risky strategy had one of the nannies realised that the child signed in as Madeleine, was not her at all.  And of course, children of that age group can be quite vocal, so could easily say my name is not Madeleine etc, whereas a much younger child would not be able to, but the age group for Madeleine would easily be able to self-identify.

And of course there was the 9.30 -9.40 hullaballoo witnessed by the Carpenters and the tapas staff who notices that the group had all left the table except for DW.

Whilst I realise that this does not leave much time for the plan to be acted out, I have always thought that the entire sequence of events was a result of a panic reaction, which would certainly account for the inconsistencies in the tapas groups statements and timelines and Gerry inadvertently being seen by the Smiths as he frantically tried to spirit his daughter away from the apartment.

And now we know that the McCanns tried to bury the Smith sighting, I think that probably gives a good indication that Smith did see Gerry that night.