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

by Sockpuppet 29.10.13 17:08

finch wrote:Does anyone know if the hotel Estrella da Luz was on the way Smithman took that night? If so, isn't it possible he assumed there was CCTV and that he would be seen? The fact that the PJ did not investigate that right away, was maybe unforseen.

Why would Smithman want to be caught on CCTV and identified?

by **PeterMac** 29.10.13 17:15

Smithman now gives the abductor only 4 or five minutes between the last Tapasnik crossing the car park towards the bar and NOT seeing shutters smashed, the window wide open, curtains whooshing, people and cars around and so on - and Kate's visit.
He cannot now use the patio door to enter or exit, because of the little gate and child security gate, which were both closed - or Kate would have told us (perhaps ! !)
So it has to be through the front, and to organise the window takes more time than using a front door key. In any event even Mitchell admits the window was not used.
BUT
Kate smells nothing when she enters. So Edgar's Victorian melodrama Chloroform or ether, ( we now know he doesn't have O level Chemistry, by the way) is out of the window - as it were.
So he is left with giving three children injections, which for those who understand children is not altogether believable, using a substance unknown to medical science, or waking them all to administer by mouth, again a substance unknown to medical science,
And he has three minutes to complete it and get out. And they have to be comatose within that time.
And the twins must then sleep for 10 hours and wake with no after effects, having been comprehensively neglected by no fewer than TWO qualified anaesthetists, plus an assortment of others who claim to have medical training.

With Tannerman there was half an hour or so during which any drug could have taken effect.
Now there isn't.

by **tigger** 29.10.13 17:21

Sockpuppet wrote:
finch wrote:Does anyone know if the hotel Estrella da Luz was on the way Smithman took that night? If so, isn't it possible he assumed there was CCTV and that he would be seen? The fact that the PJ did not investigate that right away, was maybe unforseen.
Why would Smithman want to be caught on CCTV and identified?

There was no CCTV there. Why does everyone appear to think that the PJ didn't think of that?

It does annoy me when the bl.......ing obvious is pointed out over and over again. It's in the files. Available to all who wish to read them. Free of charge. On the internet. On several sites easily found via Google.....

by Sockpuppet 29.10.13 17:25

tigger wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:
finch wrote:Does anyone know if the hotel Estrella da Luz was on the way Smithman took that night? If so, isn't it possible he assumed there was CCTV and that he would be seen? The fact that the PJ did not investigate that right away, was maybe unforseen.
Why would Smithman want to be caught on CCTV and identified?
There was no CCTV there. Why does everyone appear to think that the PJ didn't think of that?

It does annoy me when the bl.......ing obvious is pointed out over and over again. It's in the files. Available to all who wish to read them. Free of charge. On the internet. On several sites easily found via Google.....

I assume you quoted me by mistake, I didn't say there was :)

by Guest 29.10.13 17:29

With all due respect to new members - but, it is sometimes a bit tiring, when new questions or ideas are being brought up, whereas a genuine read of available genuine information is, well, available ...

No offense, meant. And definitely not pointing towards obstruction of the debate, but ... well, again, some of us are as well-versed on this case as an elder on the bible winkwink

by Lance De Boils 29.10.13 17:34

But there was a CCTV camera on the Smithman route. It's shown on the video with Paul Luckman. (Was that his name?)
However it wasn't checked in the beginning and when enquiries were made, the tapes had been wiped. Amaral was apparently furious that his officers had missed it in the first place.

by Guest 29.10.13 17:35

Lance De Boils wrote:But there was a CCTV camera on the Smithman route. It's shown on the video with Paul Luckman. (Was that his name?)
However it wasn't checked in the beginning and when enquiries were made, the tapes had been wiped. Amaral was apparently furious that his officers had missed it in the first place.

Yes, you are right Lane there was they pointed it out.

by Guest 29.10.13 17:37

Can members who have been here a long time please appreciate there are a lot of new people joining here, from links given, ie Katie Hopkins etc., who know very little about this case, so please can everyone be a little patient with them and just point out any mistakes and perhaps direct them to a relevant thread.

by thetruthbeknown 29.10.13 17:46

Lance De Boils wrote:But there was a CCTV camera on the Smithman route. It's shown on the video with Paul Luckman. (Was that his name?)
However it wasn't checked in the beginning and when enquiries were made, the tapes had been wiped. Amaral was apparently furious that his officers had missed it in the first place.

I find it strange that it had been wiped..If I remember correctly they said it was policy to wipe after '48 hours'...however it was also said that nearby complexes etc, were aware a child had apparently gone missing...why on earth would you wipe your cctv footage, knowing that its quite possible it would be wanting to be viewed at some stage??

by worriedmum 29.10.13 17:48

thetruthbeknown wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:But there was a CCTV camera on the Smithman route. It's shown on the video with Paul Luckman. (Was that his name?)
However it wasn't checked in the beginning and when enquiries were made, the tapes had been wiped. Amaral was apparently furious that his officers had missed it in the first place.
I find it strange that it had been wiped..If I remember correctly they said it was policy to wipe after '48 hours'...however it was also said that nearby complexes etc, were aware a child had apparently gone missing...why on earth would you wipe your cctv footage, knowing that its quite possible it would be wanting to be viewed at some stage??

Quite!

by Sockpuppet 29.10.13 17:49

thetruthbeknown wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:But there was a CCTV camera on the Smithman route. It's shown on the video with Paul Luckman. (Was that his name?)
However it wasn't checked in the beginning and when enquiries were made, the tapes had been wiped. Amaral was apparently furious that his officers had missed it in the first place.
I find it strange that it had been wiped..If I remember correctly they said it was policy to wipe after '48 hours'...however it was also said that nearby complexes etc, were aware a child had apparently gone missing...why on earth would you wipe your cctv footage, knowing that its quite possible it would be wanting to be viewed at some stage??

Maybe the wiping is done automatically and they didn't think to keep the footage? I mean, I imagine most businesses wouldn't bother unless the police specifically asked for it.

by Guest 29.10.13 17:49

thetruthbeknown wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:But there was a CCTV camera on the Smithman route. It's shown on the video with Paul Luckman. (Was that his name?)
However it wasn't checked in the beginning and when enquiries were made, the tapes had been wiped. Amaral was apparently furious that his officers had missed it in the first place.
I find it strange that it had been wiped..If I remember correctly they said it was policy to wipe after '48 hours'...however it was also said that nearby complexes etc, were aware a child had apparently gone missing...why on earth would you wipe your cctv footage, knowing that its quite possible it would be wanting to be viewed at some stage??

A lot of CCTV cameral are on a loop and when at the end just record over the old stuff. Don't forget Mr Smith didn't contact PJ straight away, some time had elapsed.

by Lance De Boils 29.10.13 17:54

I quite agree Candyfloss. (eta: With a few posts back, now!)

I remember being "attacked" when I first joined this forum. I was assumed to be a "troll" just because I was new here. However, what people failed to realise is that I've been on other fora since day one (MF, 3As, MCF etc). I had just "migrated" here.

I was an "old-timer" from elsewhere, so know how these places operate, generally.

However, there will be others who have just delved into this case and forum-land for the first time.

I would like to make some suggestions:

1. Please remember that some people will be genuinely new to much of the information here. There is an awful lot of data and the vast majority of it has never been covered by the news media.

2. If posters are perceived to be trying to derail a topic of discussion, please don't bother getting into tit-for-tat arguments. Just completely ignore them. Or discuss it by private messaging.

3. If a poster asks a question that you are fed up with answering/reading about, just skim over it. Someone else will usually reply.

4. Remember that behind the screens we are (mostly) all human. We sometimes type things we later regret. We make mistakes. We have things going on in our "real" lives that affect our mood and reasoning. We will have different opinions about different matters.

And that's all great - for what a boring place this would be otherwise. yes

by thetruthbeknown 29.10.13 17:57

candyfloss wrote:
thetruthbeknown wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:But there was a CCTV camera on the Smithman route. It's shown on the video with Paul Luckman. (Was that his name?)
However it wasn't checked in the beginning and when enquiries were made, the tapes had been wiped. Amaral was apparently furious that his officers had missed it in the first place.
I find it strange that it had been wiped..If I remember correctly they said it was policy to wipe after '48 hours'...however it was also said that nearby complexes etc, were aware a child had apparently gone missing...why on earth would you wipe your cctv footage, knowing that its quite possible it would be wanting to be viewed at some stage??
A lot of CCTV cameral are on a loop and when at the end just record over the old stuff. Don't forget Mr Smith didn't contact PJ straight away, some time had elapsed.

CCTV can be recorded and kept otherwise they would be no use to anyone..would be something I would do if in a nearby business and had heard of an event like that..at least kept it for a few weeks, or I would of asked if the footage was required? Wasnt this place very near to the complex, if I remember correctly?...obviously an abductor would take some route..id think most businesses would have thought the same.

by Lance De Boils 29.10.13 18:00

It is a real shame about the CCTV footage being lost.
We'll never know now why it didn't survive. It could well have been on a loop as others have suggested.
Or it might not.

But the cameras were quite visible, not tucked away anywhere out of sight.

Surely a genuine adbuctor would never have walked right past them? But then, a genuine abductor would surely have had a vehicle near the apartment for a quick getaway, and wouldn't have decided to go for a walk around town with the child....

by Lance De Boils 29.10.13 18:05

thetruthbeknown wrote:CCTV can be recorded and kept otherwise they would be no use to anyone..would be something I would do if in a nearby business and had heard of an event like that..at least kept it for a few weeks, or I would of asked if the footage was required? Wasnt this place very near to the complex, if I remember correctly?...obviously an abductor would take some route..id think most businesses would have thought the same.

As you say, you'd think most people would have made a point of keeping CCTV footage, wouldn't you? Hard to believe that people would have been unaware of the massive story breaking in that small town.

by Guest 29.10.13 18:12

I agree too with Candyfloss and Lance [a few posts back]. I would just hope that the real "newbies" would ask questions rather than pose old, derailed, eliminated theories. Having said that, it can sometimes be helpful having to think about and counter such theories again ... Let's just agree to disagree, whenever necessary. And continue our quest to Justice for Madeleine. Which, IMO!, is going to be very soon, as I can hear the walls crumbling ...

by thetruthbeknown 29.10.13 18:15

Lance De Boils wrote:As you say, you'd think most people would have made a point of keeping CCTV footage, wouldn't you? Hard to believe that people would have been unaware of the massive story breaking in that small town.

Yes, plus I seem to remember reading that some staff and holidaymakers did go to surrounding areas to look. I cant see that they wouldnt have been made aware fairly early on. Unless of course they viewed it and decided nothing there??

by Woofer 29.10.13 18:17

I agree Châtelaine - its often helpful to go over old ground.

by nobodythereeither 29.10.13 18:27

Re the CCTV footage no longer being available, assuming it was recorded over and not actually wiped, might it not still somehow be accessible?

A bit like if you know what you are doing you can find stuff on a hard drive which has been deleted?

Or is it a different system? Sorry, I'm not very techie ..... and I imagine the PJ would have thought of that at the time .... ??

by thetruthbeknown 29.10.13 18:48

nobodythereeither wrote:Re the CCTV footage no longer being available, assuming it was recorded over and not actually wiped, might it not still somehow be accessible?

A bit like if you know what you are doing you can find stuff on a hard drive which has been deleted?

Or is it a different system? Sorry, I'm not very techie ..... and I imagine the PJ would have thought of that at the time .... ??

Im not sure how cctv imaging works, or if you can use data recovery with it. Would be interesting to know though.

by Lance De Boils 29.10.13 19:06

I guess that depends on how modern the system is. If it was the old fashioned video cassette type, then I would think no chance.

by Silver Shuffle 30.10.13 7:55

Sounds like Smithman is going to be a deceased ex employee of the Ocean Club, according to CM this morning.... sad1

by nobodythereeither 30.10.13 13:23

Silver Shuffle wrote:Sounds like Smithman is going to be a deceased ex employee of the Ocean Club, according to CM this morning....

What do you mean? Have I missed something?

Could you expand on that? Thanks!

by Guest 30.10.13 13:26

nobodythereeither wrote:
Silver Shuffle wrote:Sounds like Smithman is going to be a deceased ex employee of the Ocean Club, according to CM this morning....
What do you mean? Have I missed something?

Could you expand on that? Thanks!

Here...

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

by nobodythereeither 30.10.13 13:31

candyfloss wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:
Silver Shuffle wrote:Sounds like Smithman is going to be a deceased ex employee of the Ocean Club, according to CM this morning....
What do you mean? Have I missed something?

Could you expand on that? Thanks!
Here...

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

Thanks Candyfloss, I hadn't seen that thread yet.

Oh dear, more reading .....

by thetruthbeknown 30.10.13 14:31

as its relevant to this thread thought id reiterate my post on the other thread regarding 'speculation' on developments regarding 'Smithman':

My take on the Smithman development (if it can be called that)

1. This does not come from PJ, no identity would be revealed, there is a secrecy order on any developments

2. As both SY and PJ have been doing reviews and sharing information, Smithman sighting has been known about at least 2 years by both, but was not seen by itself as significant enough to warrant an immediate reopening

3. PJ said in April 2012 that there was no intention of reopening at that time, it would only be reopened on significant evidence, not hypothesis..IMO the evidence that caused the reopening to be allowed, is more then just Smithman...I think, even with damning evidence, every other possibility has to be accounted for. Tannerman is said to be accounted for..maybe now Smithman may have been identified and accounted for? Anyone want to offer another sighting of some other abductor??? No?? Then lets get to the truth shall we? Maybe?

Im sorry if this has been covered already, my pc is playing up a bit and pages are taking an age to load [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by galena 30.10.13 14:34

thetruthbeknown wrote:as its relevant to this thread thought id reiterate my post on the other thread regarding 'speculation' on developments regarding 'Smithman':

My take on the Smithman development (if it can be called that)

1. This does not come from PJ, no identity would be revealed, there is a secrecy order on any developments

2. As both SY and PJ have been doing reviews and sharing information, Smithman sighting has been known about at least 2 years by both, but was not seen by itself as significant enough to warrant an immediate reopening

3. PJ said in April 2012 that there was no intention of reopening at that time, it would only be reopened on significant evidence, not hypothesis..IMO the evidence that caused the reopening to be allowed, is more then just Smithman...I think, even with damning evidence, every other possibility has to be accounted for. Tannerman is said to be accounted for..maybe now Smithman may have been identified and accounted for? Anyone want to offer another sighting of some other abductor??? No?? Then lets get to the truth shall we? Maybe?

Im sorry if this has been covered already, my pc is playing up a bit and pages are taking an age to load [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Kind of puzzled by this comment. Surely they've known about this 'new evidence' since the Smiths came forward in 2007?

by thetruthbeknown 30.10.13 14:44

galena wrote:Kind of puzzled by this comment. Surely they've known about this 'new evidence' since the Smiths came forward in 2007?

I was refferring to the review..the Smiths statements had been taken and noted in 2007, but I think proceedings were mainly thwarted by PIs, McCanns and their spin, the focus was deliberately guided to Tannerman. The case was shelved because of the lack of evidence, which I believe was hampered.

But for the new 'efits' and the follow up of the Smith sighting, that had been established during the review. However, was not 'significant' enough for a reopening in 2012. IMO

by galena 30.10.13 15:00

thetruthbeknown wrote:
galena wrote:Kind of puzzled by this comment. Surely they've known about this 'new evidence' since the Smiths came forward in 2007?
I was refferring to the review..the Smiths statements had been taken and noted in 2007, but I think proceedings were mainly thwarted by PIs, McCanns and their spin, the focus was deliberately guided to Tannerman. The case was shelved because of the lack of evidence, which I believe was hampered.

But for the new 'efits' and the follow up of the Smith sighting, that had been established during the review. However, was not 'significant' enough for a reopening in 2012. IMO

I have to say that if the efits are all they have it hardly seems worth re-opening the case. Efits done weeks later by witnesses who said at the time they wouldn't be able to identify the man they saw immediately afterwards?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Latest topics