Madeleine McCann: the smith family and smithman.
3 posters
CIVILISATION: Development of Society :: CRIME AND PUNISHMENT :: MADELEINE MCCANN: An impossible Investigation
Page 1 of 1
Madeleine McCann: the smith family and smithman.
the smith family. part 1.
a family from ireland that had already many holidays in praia da luz, not all travelled all times in the same group they were out that week. in total a group of 9 people, still only 4 made statements about what they had said, have seen on the evening of may 3, 2007, when going back to their quarters.
it is grown into complicated sighting grown in the name of operation smithman. it resulted in all kinds of viewpoints, between just a helpful family, up to part as actors of a covering up and by that ending too often in a complete fantasy.
still it is a nice one to explain why witness sightings can be a bit of a problem.
first there are 3 types of witnesses, the first is much rarer, but are the witnesses that in the moment of observation think what they see is a part of a crime, and bring that immediately to the notice of the police.
there are a lot more witnesses that only in a later moment, and usually when there is news made public, remember something that they noted, and because of how the news is given, deduce that could be information that can be helpful to solving a crime.
this is also the most common group of witnesses, what they have observed was not direct noticeable as part of something bad happening.
a sub group of this group of witnesses are the ones who have their own reasons to wait to make known what they have observed.
another group is a bit of a mix, it is more the result of this witnesses that brings them together. it has all kinds of people that bring on words, but not to help an investigation of a crime, but to gift themselves some feeling good. some do it with intent, many do not, they do believe in their own stories, and besides that we have to let all the physics, dreamers and other not reproducible or controllable handy extras sit in the same group.
only the first witnesses can be more easily checked, because the period of time works with them, it is usually so short, it is much easier to find some evidence of what they noticed.
sometimes they are called direct witnesses, but that term is used for witnesses that have been much nearer and even part of a crime.
the second group, and there is nothing in the pj files that excludes the witnesses of the smith family from this group, is much harder to use. time is eating from all sides on such statements, not something the witness is necessary to blame for.
first our brains are not wired to take snapshots or even full video-like movies and keep hold of them, many parts of a crime itself are not easy to recognize at all as being that.
and our minds do not store so much when our brains deduce it as ordinary, there is simply no investment in keeping the observation for later use.
and we usually have so much filters on what we observe, that we only see boots and pieces.
only a marginal number of people can take in much more of their surroundings, and a few of them can even reproduce that well.
also our own emotional state works as a filter, life experiences, even if they are only from stories read or heard come to that.
and our senses are not very great for taking in much of the surroundings into details too. when we look to the right, we simply can not see anything to the left or behind us.
our hearing is influenced by the ‘landscape’ and the habits of noises to travel through it does not help much.
our brains are also wired in different ways, some can remember faces very well, others do not and fix maybe more on appearance in total. remembering a face and giving a description of it are two different entities too.
that is why photo fits or sketches have a low rating in being successful, they already miss one full of the 3 dimensions we normally see in reality. but our brains do not store portraits in the same details, but for most more as a picture, but it can be hard to get that back in front of your memory.
and time has another problem in these kinds of witnesses, it gives the opportunity to let your brain be influenced by others, other stories, and it can even be done with bad intent. and we have little control over that from our own brains.
there are many other things in all witnesses that influence a statement, we usually put much more attention to a scene from our own feelings and emotions. fear can make a memory better, sharper, but also more false, seeing a weapon does not tell you who is the bad guy in what you see, but fear of a weapon can make you fixing so much on the weapon you do not notice anything else at all.
even gender and ability can have influences, i think the smith witnesses shows a great example of that.
so back to the smith witnesses, there is nothing that can prove they were anything else , than just people doing their own business. so when they walked back to their own accommodation after dinner and a drink in one of the bars, they say; they saw a man carrying a female child of a young age at the specific place. from the 9 people in that family, only 3 adults and a then teenage girl remember that.
the meeting with the man with a child seems to have brought little concern to that observation. it was not a situation they expected something bad was happening.
the adults observed it each on their own from about the same area of that street, the teenage girl remembers she stood in a more different position higher up on that street.
the adults had their meeting in a passing way, the teenager stood still, waiting for the others.
the problem with this group of witnesses, is that they only later on seems to be brought back in their memories of this moment, because the son peter made a connection from looking for a man walking with a child from the jane tanner story as part of the madeleine mccann case.
all members of the family had already been back home. such flashback memories are very common in humans, ever been looking for your keys, that one jacket, that bit of paper with that now important phone number, that we can all have an example of from our own memory.
so that in itself does not and cannot tell something fishy is going on. you can not exclude it either. but it is not a choice that is asked from us to make.
the problem for me is more that peter walked in with these words into the memories of his co-witnesses in his family. and as is normal in a family they must have talked about it, who remembered what exactly, who not, the time could be discussed.
we do not behave instant as the perfect witness, and certainly not when in a group that shared the moments, and trust each other. it is absolutely normal to talk about something that already have slipped from your memory, so that is not something you much put ot as a point against this group of witnesses, it only tells they are just humans too.
it is also still not part of the curriculum of teaching in 50 rules to keep in mind when you become a witness one day.
the problem is that you have yourself hardly any control over influences put from one story into yours, and it is not easy to detect it later on by even well experienced detectives.
we are simply group animals, socially bound to other humans, and groupthink works often well in that. it is usually just luck to see influences in a story, like when a witness never could have observed a detail, but it is made part of their story.
where it for this overall kind of witnesses happens without much purpose, or realizing it even happened, the third group used this often as a great tool.
but this type of influencing is why there is a reference to keep your witnesses as far apart as is possible. as soon as one of them starts to talk, the influence walks in.
and it can not be escaped, even when you are told before, or now it will be given a try in training sessions, and you are experienced, and have a good slate as a detective, it still happens.
in the situation of the smith witnesses it could not even be avoided, even if peter was first gone to a police station to put his statement down, the other 3 witnesses lived at the same address. so impossible to ask them in, to do the same and not wake up something in the minds of the others.
a family from ireland that had already many holidays in praia da luz, not all travelled all times in the same group they were out that week. in total a group of 9 people, still only 4 made statements about what they had said, have seen on the evening of may 3, 2007, when going back to their quarters.
it is grown into complicated sighting grown in the name of operation smithman. it resulted in all kinds of viewpoints, between just a helpful family, up to part as actors of a covering up and by that ending too often in a complete fantasy.
still it is a nice one to explain why witness sightings can be a bit of a problem.
first there are 3 types of witnesses, the first is much rarer, but are the witnesses that in the moment of observation think what they see is a part of a crime, and bring that immediately to the notice of the police.
there are a lot more witnesses that only in a later moment, and usually when there is news made public, remember something that they noted, and because of how the news is given, deduce that could be information that can be helpful to solving a crime.
this is also the most common group of witnesses, what they have observed was not direct noticeable as part of something bad happening.
a sub group of this group of witnesses are the ones who have their own reasons to wait to make known what they have observed.
another group is a bit of a mix, it is more the result of this witnesses that brings them together. it has all kinds of people that bring on words, but not to help an investigation of a crime, but to gift themselves some feeling good. some do it with intent, many do not, they do believe in their own stories, and besides that we have to let all the physics, dreamers and other not reproducible or controllable handy extras sit in the same group.
only the first witnesses can be more easily checked, because the period of time works with them, it is usually so short, it is much easier to find some evidence of what they noticed.
sometimes they are called direct witnesses, but that term is used for witnesses that have been much nearer and even part of a crime.
the second group, and there is nothing in the pj files that excludes the witnesses of the smith family from this group, is much harder to use. time is eating from all sides on such statements, not something the witness is necessary to blame for.
first our brains are not wired to take snapshots or even full video-like movies and keep hold of them, many parts of a crime itself are not easy to recognize at all as being that.
and our minds do not store so much when our brains deduce it as ordinary, there is simply no investment in keeping the observation for later use.
and we usually have so much filters on what we observe, that we only see boots and pieces.
only a marginal number of people can take in much more of their surroundings, and a few of them can even reproduce that well.
also our own emotional state works as a filter, life experiences, even if they are only from stories read or heard come to that.
and our senses are not very great for taking in much of the surroundings into details too. when we look to the right, we simply can not see anything to the left or behind us.
our hearing is influenced by the ‘landscape’ and the habits of noises to travel through it does not help much.
our brains are also wired in different ways, some can remember faces very well, others do not and fix maybe more on appearance in total. remembering a face and giving a description of it are two different entities too.
that is why photo fits or sketches have a low rating in being successful, they already miss one full of the 3 dimensions we normally see in reality. but our brains do not store portraits in the same details, but for most more as a picture, but it can be hard to get that back in front of your memory.
and time has another problem in these kinds of witnesses, it gives the opportunity to let your brain be influenced by others, other stories, and it can even be done with bad intent. and we have little control over that from our own brains.
there are many other things in all witnesses that influence a statement, we usually put much more attention to a scene from our own feelings and emotions. fear can make a memory better, sharper, but also more false, seeing a weapon does not tell you who is the bad guy in what you see, but fear of a weapon can make you fixing so much on the weapon you do not notice anything else at all.
even gender and ability can have influences, i think the smith witnesses shows a great example of that.
so back to the smith witnesses, there is nothing that can prove they were anything else , than just people doing their own business. so when they walked back to their own accommodation after dinner and a drink in one of the bars, they say; they saw a man carrying a female child of a young age at the specific place. from the 9 people in that family, only 3 adults and a then teenage girl remember that.
the meeting with the man with a child seems to have brought little concern to that observation. it was not a situation they expected something bad was happening.
the adults observed it each on their own from about the same area of that street, the teenage girl remembers she stood in a more different position higher up on that street.
the adults had their meeting in a passing way, the teenager stood still, waiting for the others.
the problem with this group of witnesses, is that they only later on seems to be brought back in their memories of this moment, because the son peter made a connection from looking for a man walking with a child from the jane tanner story as part of the madeleine mccann case.
all members of the family had already been back home. such flashback memories are very common in humans, ever been looking for your keys, that one jacket, that bit of paper with that now important phone number, that we can all have an example of from our own memory.
so that in itself does not and cannot tell something fishy is going on. you can not exclude it either. but it is not a choice that is asked from us to make.
the problem for me is more that peter walked in with these words into the memories of his co-witnesses in his family. and as is normal in a family they must have talked about it, who remembered what exactly, who not, the time could be discussed.
we do not behave instant as the perfect witness, and certainly not when in a group that shared the moments, and trust each other. it is absolutely normal to talk about something that already have slipped from your memory, so that is not something you much put ot as a point against this group of witnesses, it only tells they are just humans too.
it is also still not part of the curriculum of teaching in 50 rules to keep in mind when you become a witness one day.
the problem is that you have yourself hardly any control over influences put from one story into yours, and it is not easy to detect it later on by even well experienced detectives.
we are simply group animals, socially bound to other humans, and groupthink works often well in that. it is usually just luck to see influences in a story, like when a witness never could have observed a detail, but it is made part of their story.
where it for this overall kind of witnesses happens without much purpose, or realizing it even happened, the third group used this often as a great tool.
but this type of influencing is why there is a reference to keep your witnesses as far apart as is possible. as soon as one of them starts to talk, the influence walks in.
and it can not be escaped, even when you are told before, or now it will be given a try in training sessions, and you are experienced, and have a good slate as a detective, it still happens.
in the situation of the smith witnesses it could not even be avoided, even if peter was first gone to a police station to put his statement down, the other 3 witnesses lived at the same address. so impossible to ask them in, to do the same and not wake up something in the minds of the others.
Onehand- Posts : 485
Points : 572
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2024-04-17
Re: Madeleine McCann: the smith family and smithman.
the smith family part 2.
going further about influences on the statement;
so that part does count pretty hard for the investigation done from their statements, but that is not a fault of these witnesses. influencing would not be that bad if only true observations would play a role, but thinking back in our memories can replace bits from other observations and become mistakes.
influencing a witness by officers of the law is a bad thing, done with intent and even for reasons we could talk straight, it is a do not do rule.
but traditionally it was very easy to do. these line ups to ask a witness if they recognize a person, are the best even, so nowadays there is to work from a very strict protocol to use it.
same with pictures shown of people. because if you was able to show a person in a way most would recognize it as that must be a bad man, like walking them with handcuffed hands on their back , by two officers in a fierce way through the hallway where the witness was waiting for its turn. the chance their number in the row, or their picture would be picked out as the bad guy was quite successful.
the same it does work with the media attention, showing faces with a story, can influence a witness when it takes more time between the observation and the making of their statement.
and stories about the possible bad guy are influencing too. and it can be laid down on the shoulders of a witness. during an investigation officers of the law have a duty of care to not bring on influencing by their own actions.
it also works with asking questions, the way you ask them, the information you put in them, the influences of your handling of the witness can make it an unusable story to investigate.
the media is a more difficult one, they have no direct responsibility , there is in most law systems a kind of free pass to write what they like and say what they like. so it is up to the choice of the makers and producers of the media, how responsible they want to be.
but there is also a need to have the media pay attention, when you have a need of witnesses, witnesses that can know about bits of the case at hand that did happen, or that did not happen then, or in a different order.
all the time you observe anything just doing your own business, you still can have seen bits that are part of the crime, but because they do not stand out as a serious situation, you normally would think nothing about it. so you would not know about it being part of a crime, so it is nice that media attention makes you remember it.
we do not know how much influence there was from the media into the story of the smith witnesses. it was not a question asked directly, about what their habits are with using the media. that can be very different and even by different outlets for each witness. they all would have their own social circle that can influence them too, or make them know information.
and people do have already a lot of pretty standard social bias. crime is by that mostly a sole male expression. and there is nothing in this case that tells there was third party involvement, and by that there cannot be any upfront expectation if a third party was involved of it was a man, a woman, in 2007 there was no legal standing for other genders by choice, but still opinions of the public when thoughts dwindle to a third party they do select 99% for a male offender.
and with that we land in the next problem with the smith sighting, there is nothing to base a third party entering the scene at all. there never been found any traces of a break in anywhere on unit 5a. the left open patio door and entrance gate to the garden and stairs in the back garden of unit 5a could made that escape the story, still there is a story by the parents about that break in, there is only nothing that showed that indeed even was the situation in unit 5a at all.
it was not even that a strange to spot a man with a child walking around in the streets of praia da luz. If you look through the witness statements and even all kinds of pictures from that time, it was not uncommon to see one.
we have the carpenter family, that left the tapas area and the father carried his child, his wife was with him, but there could have been moments people only seen him , we had tannerman, that as a result of the later on uk investigation most likely was the father of the totman family, at least he made known he had been carrying his own child that same evening, it still does not suit te tannerman, but totman was also at a moment that evening out there with a child on his arm. jez wilkins used a buggy, but was like totman on his own.
this are all 3 fathers that been out in the street direct near unit 5a, that made themselves known.
most other areas are not investigated for looking for fathers carrying their own children. there certainly could have been others, it is at least known other people used the creche evening service but that full set of information never made it into the pj files. We also do not know if there been other child care services available to tourists that booked with other tour operators than mark warner.
but we do not know what the local residents had as habits in that matter too. We can take from the social culture in portugal it could be very common to see even young children being around when adults socialised. because of the different climate they have already often a different daily schedule too. it would be strange if local born children of tender ages did never been carried home by parents, including their fathers.
so it does not matter much if people start from the smith witnesses of that family told a true story or not, they have no say in that anyway, because it never gone over just having an opinion. the identity of the potential male with child never is became known. by statements only one of the smith family witnesses we do know there was months later on a possible recognition available, a 60 to 80% opinion that it very well could have been gerry mccann.
but that is all there is. When the new team took over the portuguese investigation, this sighting lost the interest of the investigation, and no more work wat put in it.
so all we can get from it, that some members of a larger family group have seen a man with a child, but there is nothing that tells who this actually was, or could have been, gerry mccann is based on one witness.
the witness statements of the smith family does tell it was not a very special meeting, none of them had at that specific moment any idea the man with child stood really out, beyond, he was most likely one of the few people they passed in the streets on their way back home.
and praia da luz was that evening of may 3 still a village where lives have been lived, good and bad things just take their turns as always. the people there did simply their own things, the case of the girl that got missing happened not in a vacuum.
and from that you can expect there simply could been quite a few people around that, even what their doings have been, not would like to have them out in the open.
people who prefer for their own business, not to become known as being out on the streets.
and on this point the massive attention starts to have a role too, making yourself known would easily end up, in being seen as a possible suspect in a very serious crime. so besides the ‘problem’ in their own home, when having to tell why they have been there at that time, your name and maybe even your picture would be used in the media all over the world, and locally every one would have their say about it too.
and not everyone want to pay a price for something, that has maybe absolutely nothing in any possible way or connection to the missing child case, and is maybe as event itself very innocent too.
if this man indeed exist, but has not even a finger tip in a possible crime, there is no legal obligation to make himself known. the sighting itself contains no criminal offence in itself.
this sighting can only be of importance when their is indeed a connection to the case.
because of when and where the sighting took place, it is indeed of interest for an investigation to clear it up. still if that ended up with just a local guy with his own daughter, it would be a dead end in that investigation, and even be a time waster.
you can put the result not to the original witnesses, witnesses can not change the information that is used from their words, they supposedly only remembered something that could be what the public was asked for to assist with; to make known anything that maybe could help to tell what happened, or where the child could be.
so this problem is just a later result from their statements, not theirs in the making.
going further about influences on the statement;
so that part does count pretty hard for the investigation done from their statements, but that is not a fault of these witnesses. influencing would not be that bad if only true observations would play a role, but thinking back in our memories can replace bits from other observations and become mistakes.
influencing a witness by officers of the law is a bad thing, done with intent and even for reasons we could talk straight, it is a do not do rule.
but traditionally it was very easy to do. these line ups to ask a witness if they recognize a person, are the best even, so nowadays there is to work from a very strict protocol to use it.
same with pictures shown of people. because if you was able to show a person in a way most would recognize it as that must be a bad man, like walking them with handcuffed hands on their back , by two officers in a fierce way through the hallway where the witness was waiting for its turn. the chance their number in the row, or their picture would be picked out as the bad guy was quite successful.
the same it does work with the media attention, showing faces with a story, can influence a witness when it takes more time between the observation and the making of their statement.
and stories about the possible bad guy are influencing too. and it can be laid down on the shoulders of a witness. during an investigation officers of the law have a duty of care to not bring on influencing by their own actions.
it also works with asking questions, the way you ask them, the information you put in them, the influences of your handling of the witness can make it an unusable story to investigate.
the media is a more difficult one, they have no direct responsibility , there is in most law systems a kind of free pass to write what they like and say what they like. so it is up to the choice of the makers and producers of the media, how responsible they want to be.
but there is also a need to have the media pay attention, when you have a need of witnesses, witnesses that can know about bits of the case at hand that did happen, or that did not happen then, or in a different order.
all the time you observe anything just doing your own business, you still can have seen bits that are part of the crime, but because they do not stand out as a serious situation, you normally would think nothing about it. so you would not know about it being part of a crime, so it is nice that media attention makes you remember it.
we do not know how much influence there was from the media into the story of the smith witnesses. it was not a question asked directly, about what their habits are with using the media. that can be very different and even by different outlets for each witness. they all would have their own social circle that can influence them too, or make them know information.
and people do have already a lot of pretty standard social bias. crime is by that mostly a sole male expression. and there is nothing in this case that tells there was third party involvement, and by that there cannot be any upfront expectation if a third party was involved of it was a man, a woman, in 2007 there was no legal standing for other genders by choice, but still opinions of the public when thoughts dwindle to a third party they do select 99% for a male offender.
and with that we land in the next problem with the smith sighting, there is nothing to base a third party entering the scene at all. there never been found any traces of a break in anywhere on unit 5a. the left open patio door and entrance gate to the garden and stairs in the back garden of unit 5a could made that escape the story, still there is a story by the parents about that break in, there is only nothing that showed that indeed even was the situation in unit 5a at all.
it was not even that a strange to spot a man with a child walking around in the streets of praia da luz. If you look through the witness statements and even all kinds of pictures from that time, it was not uncommon to see one.
we have the carpenter family, that left the tapas area and the father carried his child, his wife was with him, but there could have been moments people only seen him , we had tannerman, that as a result of the later on uk investigation most likely was the father of the totman family, at least he made known he had been carrying his own child that same evening, it still does not suit te tannerman, but totman was also at a moment that evening out there with a child on his arm. jez wilkins used a buggy, but was like totman on his own.
this are all 3 fathers that been out in the street direct near unit 5a, that made themselves known.
most other areas are not investigated for looking for fathers carrying their own children. there certainly could have been others, it is at least known other people used the creche evening service but that full set of information never made it into the pj files. We also do not know if there been other child care services available to tourists that booked with other tour operators than mark warner.
but we do not know what the local residents had as habits in that matter too. We can take from the social culture in portugal it could be very common to see even young children being around when adults socialised. because of the different climate they have already often a different daily schedule too. it would be strange if local born children of tender ages did never been carried home by parents, including their fathers.
so it does not matter much if people start from the smith witnesses of that family told a true story or not, they have no say in that anyway, because it never gone over just having an opinion. the identity of the potential male with child never is became known. by statements only one of the smith family witnesses we do know there was months later on a possible recognition available, a 60 to 80% opinion that it very well could have been gerry mccann.
but that is all there is. When the new team took over the portuguese investigation, this sighting lost the interest of the investigation, and no more work wat put in it.
so all we can get from it, that some members of a larger family group have seen a man with a child, but there is nothing that tells who this actually was, or could have been, gerry mccann is based on one witness.
the witness statements of the smith family does tell it was not a very special meeting, none of them had at that specific moment any idea the man with child stood really out, beyond, he was most likely one of the few people they passed in the streets on their way back home.
and praia da luz was that evening of may 3 still a village where lives have been lived, good and bad things just take their turns as always. the people there did simply their own things, the case of the girl that got missing happened not in a vacuum.
and from that you can expect there simply could been quite a few people around that, even what their doings have been, not would like to have them out in the open.
people who prefer for their own business, not to become known as being out on the streets.
and on this point the massive attention starts to have a role too, making yourself known would easily end up, in being seen as a possible suspect in a very serious crime. so besides the ‘problem’ in their own home, when having to tell why they have been there at that time, your name and maybe even your picture would be used in the media all over the world, and locally every one would have their say about it too.
and not everyone want to pay a price for something, that has maybe absolutely nothing in any possible way or connection to the missing child case, and is maybe as event itself very innocent too.
if this man indeed exist, but has not even a finger tip in a possible crime, there is no legal obligation to make himself known. the sighting itself contains no criminal offence in itself.
this sighting can only be of importance when their is indeed a connection to the case.
because of when and where the sighting took place, it is indeed of interest for an investigation to clear it up. still if that ended up with just a local guy with his own daughter, it would be a dead end in that investigation, and even be a time waster.
you can put the result not to the original witnesses, witnesses can not change the information that is used from their words, they supposedly only remembered something that could be what the public was asked for to assist with; to make known anything that maybe could help to tell what happened, or where the child could be.
so this problem is just a later result from their statements, not theirs in the making.
Onehand- Posts : 485
Points : 572
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2024-04-17
Re: Madeleine McCann: the smith family and smithman.
the smith family. part 3.
there is another problem to keep in mind because of being all from the same group, staying there for that week at least. And this was simply never investigated at all.
because when the statements are all the result of one of the adults, peter, remembering that they have seen a man with a child, almost 2 weeks after that supposedly has happened, we have to look to possible interference, called projection. and as hard this is to understand, even for the witnesses themselves, this does happen. if this family had made a pattern, or at least on more days that week also go out to eat in the same restaurant, or another near it, visit these evenings a bar for a afterdrink, it could happen that from the eagerness to help the investigation, and talking within the family, it could happen the day they have seen a man with child was placed on that thursday evening.
this is not lying about something, or making up stories, and because all describe it as an quite ordinary meeting, it could easily been placed on thursday.
and this could be a reason why the man never made himself known too, the question was always who was the man with a child on thursday. and because it was quite an heavy question, because all who made themselves known would be under serious attention, not only from the police, but in their own families too, and in their complete social network.
gossip, loose thoughts can reshape a unsure role into much to large proportions, and is one of many reasons why people are usually not very active in making themselves known.
so that is why this sighting because of the date it was placed on, and how near unit 5a, it need still much more investigation into it.
there is word the family had a bill from the restaurant, but if they been dining out as their pattern that week, that does not secure it enough. there is a print out from the control role of the til at the bar, but none of these in that time period can tell exactly more about the time they been there and when they paid.
and this is exactly what investigation do, checking a witness statement to other points that can be used, these checked are needed, not even so much to tell if it are lies, made up stories or true stories, of only for smaller bits.
a witness statement in itself cannot be called evidence, it needs a lot of back up in facts and other circumstances. It has not even much to do with the witnesses, or any intent they can have, most often witnesses deliver only smaller pieces to the story, and that must fit together to understand what has taken place.
until a witness statement is further looked into, it has no reason for going out hard on witnesses. It is never up to the witness to give their observations meaning in an investigation. they simply deliver information, only because they got into an understanding the investigation could have a need for it, and seeing a man with a child is enough to make it into that. finding good witnesses is usually sheer luck, even much more when you ask to tell about an observation that at the time itself had very little to make a deep impression into their brains.
also we do have very different ways to what we observe, some people do faces, others more clothing, or a more vague but still more overall impression. observing from even some metres apart can make what is seen or could be seen very different.
like in this example there been two different people to observe and also the combination of them together. a meeting in passing, that usually means a moving target that you see for seconds. It is unknown when each of the 3 adults started to notice the man with child, and when they began to observe. the female teenager was standing still on a higher point looking back into that same street, she had a complete different perspective.
and males and females do observe different, certainly when it is already dark, the female teenager was of an age she could already been starting to look from a female perspective.
seeing a unknown male, makes usually a much sharper impression to females than to most males. growing up with look out for the guys, certainly out on a dark street, is what does that.
so it is not strange the statement of the female teenager has so much more details, her observation time was much longer, she stood on her own a bit more away from her family.
and she could had that typical female danger/escalation observation to see if she was at risk herself.
and we recognize most other people much more in their moving form in 3d, than as the 2 dimensional photo fits or even pictures. it is for that reason that the tv shows with police cases that are looking for who knows this person, are more successful when videos are available. much more effective than descriptions and photo fits and pictures.
faces can also very easily be influenced by pictures seen in the media, but people who have in real life hardly any difficult to recognize a face from someone they met before, can not always give a correct description of the face.
and from these witnesses and we do not know who of them are on a much later time, almost a year later even asked to make a photofit/ drawing. the older male witness has said he did not assisted in that, so only the younger male, his adult son, his wife, the other female witness, who’s statement is never been published, and the female teenager a daughter too can have assisted.
both are said to be the result of at least two witnesses, both the results are made with different systems, that could also be two different operators, and we have nothing to check their credentials in that. they are made by private arrangement through private detectives.
so when they made in into the public eye during the presentations in multiple countries in europe in 2013 by operation grange they became more a disturbance than a help. two on first sight very different male faces. without details that even could make them stand out.
it was a bit a just try something, than the usual habit when you end up with second hand information and as far as known there is not much spoken with these witnesses again.
what did happen later on, was made up saying about the ideas the witnesses years later had, and by that should have changed their information given in 2007 to the first investigation. what just make it more difficult to understand and use.
not at fault of the witnesses, but all the more the mouths of the media, that did that for their not told reasons.
only one witness has a know second statement made, from what sounds an unwilling mind, he still saw it as his duty to tell he thinks with 60 to 80% of being sure to have recognized gerry mccann, as the man he saw from his statement about thursday may 3, 2007.
a recognition triggered when gerry mccann came down the stairs from the plane, carrying his son. what was part of a news item, when the family mccann returned back home from portugal.
all together it is hard to put meaning to these statements, they simply lack a serious investigation. there is no direct link to unit 5a that can help in that too.
there is no clear timeline and even zero hour is still insecure enough.
so it would be very hard to include as possible lead, or exclude it as impossible.
this sighting was already a bit later known of, but to the public it took much longer, and public must be read to all people, only who read through the pj files had a better insight, but that was already over a year later.
so others who could have seen this same man can be missed by that and lost in what time simply does to memories, they do fade easily if not used.
it simply results in a very weak link, you cannot build much of this case on.
Onehand- Posts : 485
Points : 572
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2024-04-17
Re: Madeleine McCann: the smith family and smithman.
Why is there reason to think the Smith family were in any way involved?
We are all different, we all process information differently. There is no right or wrong way recollections can be reasonably assessed.
Statement analysis is not the answer, too many obstacles to be definitive.
We are all different, we all process information differently. There is no right or wrong way recollections can be reasonably assessed.
Statement analysis is not the answer, too many obstacles to be definitive.
Spamalot- Posts : 286
Points : 344
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2024-04-25
Re: Madeleine McCann: the smith family and smithman.
i think the involved part lives more in opinions formed by people who are not part of the investigation.
and involved would be a very harsh conclusion, it happens often with all people who made formal statements.
and formal statements are in itself not very special, it only tells information in it, is or was at/or around that time during an investigation of intrest. and it is more about the information itself than the person itself.
to see jokers around in formal statements is normally pretty rare, by doubt, keep it informal, not even all formal statements been published in the pj files, or if earlier interview really been formal or simply informal.
the statements from a group are nice to use as an example why being a witness is quite hard. part of this family has spent many days there, the parents had their own unit, so to know the prominent local faces is not strange. it is a very small village, and the group foreigners frequently out there or even took residency is from the uk, the chance is quite big that they pass by during the same events.
and look around in your own life, there are people you know from just seeing them at multiple times, over the years it is not strange to pick up some names to the faces, but it would not tell you know each other well, knowing off is all you need to say i saw that one there, or not.
and remembering stuff from a situation that brought not much in emotions to imprint it in your brain are common, i mean take now a pen and a piece of paper and try to write down what you have eaten each day of the last 7 in one minute.
even if you cooked then yourself that is already hard.
this meeting took place in seconds.
and it is sound enough to investigate with effort, that did not really happened. so we look only to half a story.
the members of this family answered simply when there was asked for information, they did that, after that it is simply up to an investigation to see if it has a meaning and use in the full story.
and it does not mean they are fair game, and can be worked through only opinions into criminals. and this was done pretty extreme too, wasn't this the family that got mixed up with another family of the same name at the time?
if a witness statement does not fit and has so little to establish identity, it works so much easier to simply set it aside and see where it brings you without it.
and involved would be a very harsh conclusion, it happens often with all people who made formal statements.
and formal statements are in itself not very special, it only tells information in it, is or was at/or around that time during an investigation of intrest. and it is more about the information itself than the person itself.
to see jokers around in formal statements is normally pretty rare, by doubt, keep it informal, not even all formal statements been published in the pj files, or if earlier interview really been formal or simply informal.
the statements from a group are nice to use as an example why being a witness is quite hard. part of this family has spent many days there, the parents had their own unit, so to know the prominent local faces is not strange. it is a very small village, and the group foreigners frequently out there or even took residency is from the uk, the chance is quite big that they pass by during the same events.
and look around in your own life, there are people you know from just seeing them at multiple times, over the years it is not strange to pick up some names to the faces, but it would not tell you know each other well, knowing off is all you need to say i saw that one there, or not.
and remembering stuff from a situation that brought not much in emotions to imprint it in your brain are common, i mean take now a pen and a piece of paper and try to write down what you have eaten each day of the last 7 in one minute.
even if you cooked then yourself that is already hard.
this meeting took place in seconds.
and it is sound enough to investigate with effort, that did not really happened. so we look only to half a story.
the members of this family answered simply when there was asked for information, they did that, after that it is simply up to an investigation to see if it has a meaning and use in the full story.
and it does not mean they are fair game, and can be worked through only opinions into criminals. and this was done pretty extreme too, wasn't this the family that got mixed up with another family of the same name at the time?
if a witness statement does not fit and has so little to establish identity, it works so much easier to simply set it aside and see where it brings you without it.
Onehand- Posts : 485
Points : 572
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2024-04-17
Re: Madeleine McCann: the smith family and smithman.
i think the involved part lives more in opinions formed by people who are not part of the investigation.
Exactly! There is no way the outside observer can be privy to inside information, there has of course been those with feigned knowledge of inside information to promote their social media standing but that feigned knowledge has no foundation. It's just fantasy.
Internet super sleuths are not official police investigators, they have no place interfering with a police investigation, less still the lives of innocent people. How can anyone morally try to ruin a strangers reputation on a whim or fancy? In this particular case not just one family but another mistakenly identified as the Smith family.
If anyone was to ask me what day, date and/or time I did or saw no way could I respond with any accuracy, even with a specific event that might make it stand out in daily routine. Size, colours, features can only be guess work. We all perceive things differently.
And then to work on the entire family weaving in a 12 year old daughter and relatives with problems of their own only to produce a fantastical tale of evil intentions.
https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_SMITH.htm
When privately looking into a police investigation by all means question every aspect but don't bring specific people's name into disrepute on a social media platform.
Remember mud sticks.
If anyone wants to promote themselves as the ultimate repentant sinner then go for it, fill your boots, but not at the expense of others. Make it your own personal crusade, not a strangers fate.
The Portuguese police case coordinator thought the Smith family to be of particular interest to the investigation, hence he asked them to return to Portugal to assist. He had first hand knowledge of the investigation thus I think it only reasonable to trust his experience over and above non-entities who think they know better.
There is nothing obviously sinister about the Smith family's movements and behaviour, even if there was it's not for the internet armchair detective to determine.
Unless of the course the desire is to further drag the Portuguese police through the mud
Spamalot- Posts : 286
Points : 344
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2024-04-25
Re: Madeleine McCann: the smith family and smithman.
the only big problem around the smithman sighting will always be that there can simply be no timeline formed in this case of madeleine mccann.
no timeline means you loose the ability to check, and that works through all segments of this case. and it ishard to have to believe bits or times from people you know as proven liars already.
if i land in the mind fix of having to believe my suspects or build the case by accepting their words as true, i would hand in my badge.
you can build hypothetical stories enough, toi se what can fit or not, but knowingly go over that hypothetical because you assume times and alibis must be correct, you have to remember that this will always be a trip into fiction.
there is simply not even enough looked into the smith sighting itself to make a hard timeline from that alone. it is easy enough to use what potentially could be a fitting timeline from what is already in the pj files itself, but in itself i would not dare to take that into court.
so the tapas9 timelines are unusable at best, and a smith timeline is only one that could be a provisional one. that part is not even resting on that family itself, but on an investigation.
there could be a road in it, but it is not paved and ready to make use of to give it its meaning. statistics cannot handle the stones, you need working hands to get that done.
no timeline means you loose the ability to check, and that works through all segments of this case. and it ishard to have to believe bits or times from people you know as proven liars already.
if i land in the mind fix of having to believe my suspects or build the case by accepting their words as true, i would hand in my badge.
you can build hypothetical stories enough, toi se what can fit or not, but knowingly go over that hypothetical because you assume times and alibis must be correct, you have to remember that this will always be a trip into fiction.
there is simply not even enough looked into the smith sighting itself to make a hard timeline from that alone. it is easy enough to use what potentially could be a fitting timeline from what is already in the pj files itself, but in itself i would not dare to take that into court.
so the tapas9 timelines are unusable at best, and a smith timeline is only one that could be a provisional one. that part is not even resting on that family itself, but on an investigation.
there could be a road in it, but it is not paved and ready to make use of to give it its meaning. statistics cannot handle the stones, you need working hands to get that done.
Onehand- Posts : 485
Points : 572
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2024-04-17
Re: Madeleine McCann: the smith family and smithman.
So why do people think it their right to build a story on flimsy information - what's the purpose other than perhaps to lead to deception.
Seriously, how many people (if any) back in 2007 clocked their every move? You get up to relieve yourself and check the time before and after, you leave an establishment and purposely check the time just in case you or someone might need or wish to know at some time in the future?
The Smith family were witnesses - and still are, until such times as new information is available that might lead to a review of their statements.
One of the family was a twelve year old girl, is it being suggested a child herself would willingly put herself forward to deceive - to lie to the police? A twelve year old, not necessarily directly involved with child care or some other group activity like ushering juniors about whilst the men pick-up the tab? Children are generally more observant than their elders, they see and hear when the adults are too busy fussing about.
How can anyone know the behaviour of the Smith family without being there to witness their every move. The armchair super sleuth is a menace to society when allowed to build castles in the air on scant information and a whole load of misinformation. The Smith family are people and should be respected as such, they are not playthings to toss about just for fun.
Again I say, the Portuguese Judiciary, coordinated by Mr Amaral, thought the Smith's sighting to be of interest to the investigation and acted accordingly - is it now being suggested (again?) the PJ are a bungling useless police force that couldn't organize sardines at a Tapas bar?
Seriously, how many people (if any) back in 2007 clocked their every move? You get up to relieve yourself and check the time before and after, you leave an establishment and purposely check the time just in case you or someone might need or wish to know at some time in the future?
The Smith family were witnesses - and still are, until such times as new information is available that might lead to a review of their statements.
One of the family was a twelve year old girl, is it being suggested a child herself would willingly put herself forward to deceive - to lie to the police? A twelve year old, not necessarily directly involved with child care or some other group activity like ushering juniors about whilst the men pick-up the tab? Children are generally more observant than their elders, they see and hear when the adults are too busy fussing about.
How can anyone know the behaviour of the Smith family without being there to witness their every move. The armchair super sleuth is a menace to society when allowed to build castles in the air on scant information and a whole load of misinformation. The Smith family are people and should be respected as such, they are not playthings to toss about just for fun.
Again I say, the Portuguese Judiciary, coordinated by Mr Amaral, thought the Smith's sighting to be of interest to the investigation and acted accordingly - is it now being suggested (again?) the PJ are a bungling useless police force that couldn't organize sardines at a Tapas bar?
Spamalot- Posts : 286
Points : 344
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2024-04-25
Re: Madeleine McCann: the smith family and smithman.
the bigger problem why this family often gets offended at best, or much worse, is that people builds walls without using the needed materials to make it stand.
it starts with starting to think for others, and you simply cannot.
there is not that much in the information about the smith sighting to set in stone, wat is the usual thing with witnesses, people doing their own thing, in their own tempo, because it is their business and with their own mindset on the go to it.
in the smith sighting is at best only one time slot known, the moment payed at the restaurant they eat at thursday.
still if you read all there is, including outside the files there are citations in some media about this sighting.
and without any bad ideas or intentions this sighting needs a lot more investigation. it comes together in a well bonded family group, and as they are simply of the human kind, that means their memories, just like that of all others can make mistakes, and that happens even more when people do want to be of help.
so there need to be answers as was this dining out really a special occasion, or did they eat out every night in the same restaurant. you need simply to exclude all possible mixing up situations. amaral understood that well, he wanted some of them back. taking a witness statement is easy, but the information needs still a lot of checking.
besides on the mccann side their are at least 5 different timelines, 2 on the cover of a sticker book, one from their testimonies, one handed over by control risk, one found in the possessions of kate mccann. and this are the ones known of during the first portuguese investigation. much later there is one by kate her book and one presented in 2013 by operation grange, from the days redwood was peeling the onion.
to solve a case by checking all information you get in, it is usually a must to work from just one single timeline. with 5 different ones we call that simply lies.
until the call to the gnr at 22.41 hours on thursday 2007 what really happened was in the hands of the mccanns.
we cannot know why they did things, when they did things or how they did things, if that was all from one bright idea or mind, or many ideas flowing on one in the other, and not even how many minds been at work and what motivated these minds.
if we start from a body removed from 5a, that would be okay, because there are enough indications to make that a plausible event, but we do not know what motivation played a role in that, or if that was simply only a way to keep some distance between a body and unit 5a, or that it from the start was just the first trip on the way to never been found, or was the first intent not to have it never found, but just a bit later. and motivations can easily changed into other handling.
like when the body was not found at a certain time, the motivation changed to keep it hidden for longer, or maybe forever.
that part of this case did never happened in our minds, it happened in the mind of others, that have simply their own reasons to motivate what they do. and i understand how hard it is, to keep your own mind and thoughts out of a criminal investigation.
restrict the use for hypothetical and possible situations, but keep telling your brain they are only yours, not others. you need hypothetical and possible situations to get them on a list to check if you looked at all of them. only when it gets to take some out it must be the information in the case that dictates that, not your own mind.
these lists can be used to make you look for specific signs.
the moment you start to assume and by that start to take words for granted, you are a goner, it will no longer be the information in a case at work, but your mind who put stakes around what your mind put in the middle. what happens as a result of that is that you start to build a story on that, but it becomes a lottery and only luck can decide if your mind picks accidentally the right one. lotteries always have more players as prizes.
the problem with the not existent timeline of the tapas9 group and the mccanns themselves looked from their side is also very complicated from all others around them that thursday evening or any other moment around that day.
for others that is normal, they have their own lives and things to take care about, also the area it happened all is a complicated one. no roots, so we have not even a raw idea who were around and by that potentially witnesses about that day and activities of the tapas9 group, or the victim in this case madeleine. not all statements are in the pj files available.
we do not know how many are hiding in the informal route, it means the usual '100 easy questions' you can check against each other, are not in our reach here. still the margins that delivered are to wide to frame them in a timeline that could be used.
so there is to keep it simple only still pretty raw information from the smithman sightings and no secure timeline to check if gerry mccann could be or cannot be smithman at all.
my own opinion is because of that inconclusive. i do not mind to look into possibilities for this case from a yes it was gerry , and no, it was not gerry. what is missing is a timeline on the gerry side to get it into in or excluding him. the information is not there. only it still cannot be taken over a result what is nothing else as my own opinion about it, or an opinion of someone else.
there are many stories build where gerry is smithman and as much on gerry is not smithman that could be from other points end up higher or lower in the ranking of posibilities, but it cannot reach a 100% sure in anything.
what others do think together in their minds can be very different from that of our own. how many times do we say , you are mad to even thinking that. well during criminal investigations it is very common to hear things your mind never had to think about, things you would not want or dare to think about, but some other mind did that exactly. usually for the better. and that makes using our own mind as a substitute for what others could think and worse act from not the best approach.
and it is okay your mind cannot see things as realistic. and it is not an obligation to use your mind to get a conclusion. but even when you do, look back where it is still based on information and where your own mind just was actively back filling to it.
and it is a misunderstanding criminal investigations are solving cases. all they do is get all information together, put that after checking in order, mark the facts, get the circumstances with it, and if lucky get some possible evidence with that. only all is still to be examined in a court of law. and only there the information gets its full meaning.
and how hard it can be when you are only part of the armchair division, you cannot even reach that level, in rare cases some can grow into the role of witness or a tipster. but most just stay part of the public.
it starts with starting to think for others, and you simply cannot.
there is not that much in the information about the smith sighting to set in stone, wat is the usual thing with witnesses, people doing their own thing, in their own tempo, because it is their business and with their own mindset on the go to it.
in the smith sighting is at best only one time slot known, the moment payed at the restaurant they eat at thursday.
still if you read all there is, including outside the files there are citations in some media about this sighting.
and without any bad ideas or intentions this sighting needs a lot more investigation. it comes together in a well bonded family group, and as they are simply of the human kind, that means their memories, just like that of all others can make mistakes, and that happens even more when people do want to be of help.
so there need to be answers as was this dining out really a special occasion, or did they eat out every night in the same restaurant. you need simply to exclude all possible mixing up situations. amaral understood that well, he wanted some of them back. taking a witness statement is easy, but the information needs still a lot of checking.
besides on the mccann side their are at least 5 different timelines, 2 on the cover of a sticker book, one from their testimonies, one handed over by control risk, one found in the possessions of kate mccann. and this are the ones known of during the first portuguese investigation. much later there is one by kate her book and one presented in 2013 by operation grange, from the days redwood was peeling the onion.
to solve a case by checking all information you get in, it is usually a must to work from just one single timeline. with 5 different ones we call that simply lies.
until the call to the gnr at 22.41 hours on thursday 2007 what really happened was in the hands of the mccanns.
we cannot know why they did things, when they did things or how they did things, if that was all from one bright idea or mind, or many ideas flowing on one in the other, and not even how many minds been at work and what motivated these minds.
if we start from a body removed from 5a, that would be okay, because there are enough indications to make that a plausible event, but we do not know what motivation played a role in that, or if that was simply only a way to keep some distance between a body and unit 5a, or that it from the start was just the first trip on the way to never been found, or was the first intent not to have it never found, but just a bit later. and motivations can easily changed into other handling.
like when the body was not found at a certain time, the motivation changed to keep it hidden for longer, or maybe forever.
that part of this case did never happened in our minds, it happened in the mind of others, that have simply their own reasons to motivate what they do. and i understand how hard it is, to keep your own mind and thoughts out of a criminal investigation.
restrict the use for hypothetical and possible situations, but keep telling your brain they are only yours, not others. you need hypothetical and possible situations to get them on a list to check if you looked at all of them. only when it gets to take some out it must be the information in the case that dictates that, not your own mind.
these lists can be used to make you look for specific signs.
the moment you start to assume and by that start to take words for granted, you are a goner, it will no longer be the information in a case at work, but your mind who put stakes around what your mind put in the middle. what happens as a result of that is that you start to build a story on that, but it becomes a lottery and only luck can decide if your mind picks accidentally the right one. lotteries always have more players as prizes.
the problem with the not existent timeline of the tapas9 group and the mccanns themselves looked from their side is also very complicated from all others around them that thursday evening or any other moment around that day.
for others that is normal, they have their own lives and things to take care about, also the area it happened all is a complicated one. no roots, so we have not even a raw idea who were around and by that potentially witnesses about that day and activities of the tapas9 group, or the victim in this case madeleine. not all statements are in the pj files available.
we do not know how many are hiding in the informal route, it means the usual '100 easy questions' you can check against each other, are not in our reach here. still the margins that delivered are to wide to frame them in a timeline that could be used.
so there is to keep it simple only still pretty raw information from the smithman sightings and no secure timeline to check if gerry mccann could be or cannot be smithman at all.
my own opinion is because of that inconclusive. i do not mind to look into possibilities for this case from a yes it was gerry , and no, it was not gerry. what is missing is a timeline on the gerry side to get it into in or excluding him. the information is not there. only it still cannot be taken over a result what is nothing else as my own opinion about it, or an opinion of someone else.
there are many stories build where gerry is smithman and as much on gerry is not smithman that could be from other points end up higher or lower in the ranking of posibilities, but it cannot reach a 100% sure in anything.
what others do think together in their minds can be very different from that of our own. how many times do we say , you are mad to even thinking that. well during criminal investigations it is very common to hear things your mind never had to think about, things you would not want or dare to think about, but some other mind did that exactly. usually for the better. and that makes using our own mind as a substitute for what others could think and worse act from not the best approach.
and it is okay your mind cannot see things as realistic. and it is not an obligation to use your mind to get a conclusion. but even when you do, look back where it is still based on information and where your own mind just was actively back filling to it.
and it is a misunderstanding criminal investigations are solving cases. all they do is get all information together, put that after checking in order, mark the facts, get the circumstances with it, and if lucky get some possible evidence with that. only all is still to be examined in a court of law. and only there the information gets its full meaning.
and how hard it can be when you are only part of the armchair division, you cannot even reach that level, in rare cases some can grow into the role of witness or a tipster. but most just stay part of the public.
Onehand- Posts : 485
Points : 572
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2024-04-17
Re: Madeleine McCann: the smith family and smithman.
The Smith family entered the scene as witnesses because they saw a man carrying a small child along a street in Luz, their statements are there in the PJ files for all to read (not misread), what has been said off the record I doubt we will ever know. Press and media reports do not count as reliable nor useful in any way, all they do is create confusion and give people fiction to mull over, hence all the alternative theorizing and invention.
When trying to fathom greater detail of the case, it's paramount that the PJ investigation is always at the core before embarking on enhanced theorizing but this hasn't been happening. Instead the armchair detective/critic has built it's own story without due consideration for the extensive investigation undertaken by the Portuguese Judiciary - they seem to think they know better.
Well I don't know better - I would never presume to think or suggest I do know better, thus the original investigation is always there to guide before building castles in the air based on ignorance. I make no apology for saying that.
Over the years there have been some pretty ghastly interpretations of the Smith family's involvement, the worse being the suggestion they were all, or at least three key members of the family, were involved with some sort of conspiracy. Thus suggesting the family members were somehow involved with Madeleine McCann's disappearance and/or the aftermath. This all comes from the warped mind of the social media super sleuth - more often than not with total disregard for evidence or opposing commentary. Literally a case of what they don't know they invent.
Even when shown the right path, presented with the documented detail from the case files, still they propagate their own unevidenced theories and make believe stories. Over the years I've seen so many good hearted committed people unfairly ostracised across social media for daring to right the wrongs with evidence and fact.
It's hard to believe or even understand how, after over 17 years, the same old nonsense is still being peddled across social media. Even closed for further discussion because the case has been all but solved by the social media armchair detectives! Unless of course you happen to be a former police officer who thinks because of it's past life it has the right approach and all the right answers.
Enter Jon Wedger, ex-police officer and now whistleblower and media celebrity by way of example - what a load of twaddle he speaks about the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance and he wasn't even involved with the investigation in any way shape or form, not even the British police who assumed the role of case coordinators/reviewers and later investigators. When in reality they were only assigned to assist the Portuguese investigation - or did they assign themselves? Whatever they overlooked their true role - or forgot!
Don't the British police get early retirement with a fat pension for good reason? It's certainly not so they can surf the crest of the wave for a lifetime by trading on their past.
When trying to fathom greater detail of the case, it's paramount that the PJ investigation is always at the core before embarking on enhanced theorizing but this hasn't been happening. Instead the armchair detective/critic has built it's own story without due consideration for the extensive investigation undertaken by the Portuguese Judiciary - they seem to think they know better.
Well I don't know better - I would never presume to think or suggest I do know better, thus the original investigation is always there to guide before building castles in the air based on ignorance. I make no apology for saying that.
Over the years there have been some pretty ghastly interpretations of the Smith family's involvement, the worse being the suggestion they were all, or at least three key members of the family, were involved with some sort of conspiracy. Thus suggesting the family members were somehow involved with Madeleine McCann's disappearance and/or the aftermath. This all comes from the warped mind of the social media super sleuth - more often than not with total disregard for evidence or opposing commentary. Literally a case of what they don't know they invent.
Even when shown the right path, presented with the documented detail from the case files, still they propagate their own unevidenced theories and make believe stories. Over the years I've seen so many good hearted committed people unfairly ostracised across social media for daring to right the wrongs with evidence and fact.
It's hard to believe or even understand how, after over 17 years, the same old nonsense is still being peddled across social media. Even closed for further discussion because the case has been all but solved by the social media armchair detectives! Unless of course you happen to be a former police officer who thinks because of it's past life it has the right approach and all the right answers.
Enter Jon Wedger, ex-police officer and now whistleblower and media celebrity by way of example - what a load of twaddle he speaks about the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance and he wasn't even involved with the investigation in any way shape or form, not even the British police who assumed the role of case coordinators/reviewers and later investigators. When in reality they were only assigned to assist the Portuguese investigation - or did they assign themselves? Whatever they overlooked their true role - or forgot!
Don't the British police get early retirement with a fat pension for good reason? It's certainly not so they can surf the crest of the wave for a lifetime by trading on their past.
Spamalot- Posts : 286
Points : 344
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2024-04-25
Re: Madeleine McCann: the smith family and smithman.
If the subject matter weren't so serious you could almost see the funny side of all this alternative thinking - remember Operation Grange anyone?
In the year 2013, London's Metropolitan Police presumed to take the role of an investigative force to pursue the case of missing Madeleine McCann. Leading on from the social media horror of the said force 'reviewing' the case in the year 2011 under the guise of Operation Grange, the armchair detectives were again in meltdown - quite understandably when it was publicly declared by the chief of police that the parents McCann were to be excluded from further investigation, as they had already been scrutinized and both eventually relieved of arguida status (lack of conclusive evidence) by the Portuguese Judiciary.
So here we have the same group of armchair detectives, give or take, choosing to cast aside the extensive investigation conducted by the PJ in favour of alternative unevidenced theorizing? Doing the exact same thing as the Metropolitan Police have done/are doing?
Ride with the waves, swim with the tide - this case is riddled with hypocrisy.
In the year 2013, London's Metropolitan Police presumed to take the role of an investigative force to pursue the case of missing Madeleine McCann. Leading on from the social media horror of the said force 'reviewing' the case in the year 2011 under the guise of Operation Grange, the armchair detectives were again in meltdown - quite understandably when it was publicly declared by the chief of police that the parents McCann were to be excluded from further investigation, as they had already been scrutinized and both eventually relieved of arguida status (lack of conclusive evidence) by the Portuguese Judiciary.
So here we have the same group of armchair detectives, give or take, choosing to cast aside the extensive investigation conducted by the PJ in favour of alternative unevidenced theorizing? Doing the exact same thing as the Metropolitan Police have done/are doing?
Ride with the waves, swim with the tide - this case is riddled with hypocrisy.
Operation Grange
On 12 May 2011 the Met announced that, at the request of the Home Secretary, it had agreed to bring its particular expertise to the Madeleine McCann case.
The then Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, considered the request and took the decision that on balance it was the right thing to do. This was subject to funding being made available by the Home Office, as this case is beyond the Met’s jurisdiction.
Investigative review
The Met’s involvement, known as Operation Grange, is led by the Specialist Crime Command unit and involved, in the first instance, an ‘investigative review’. This was a review of all of the investigations that had been previously conducted into the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
Ongoing investigation
In July 2013 the status of the Met’s enquiries changed to that of an investigation, working with the Portuguese authorities to pursue specific lines of enquiry.
The Met continues to work with and support colleagues from law enforcement in Portugal and Germany.
The Home Office continues to fund Operation Grange.
https://www.met.police.uk/notices/met/operation-grange/
CIVILISATION: Development of Society :: CRIME AND PUNISHMENT :: MADELEINE MCCANN: An impossible Investigation
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|