Madeleine McCann: Police Let Kidnapper Go
MADELEINE McCANN Watch: In which Mr Scar Face is named and detectives find five new suspects..
Daily Star: “MADDIE COPS SNUBBED ME OVER SPOTTY”
THE key witness who saw the spotty man suspected of snatching Madeleine McCann says she was ignored by bungling police.
Of him - WTF! Face, the latest and ugliest suspect do far. So who is the women who saw the unforgettable face of the man?
The creepy character was seen watching the McCanns’ holiday apartment three days before the youngster was abducted. The British tourist witness, 36, was so spooked by the sinister stranger she pulled her three-year-old daughter away from him.
Because he was trying to get her?
But even though she was staying three doors from the McCanns she was never spoken to by police. Her apartment was never searched and her evidence was ignored for two years.
As soon as she returned to the UK she went to her local police in Wiltshire and reported the man – now believed by investigators to be part of a two-man abduction team.
There’s another one?
But she was never interviewed. Then Madeleine’s mum Kate, 41, spotted the witness’s details hidden in 17 volumes of police files archived as “unsolved’’ and tracked her down. The woman helped compile an image of the suspect that featured in the Channel 4 documentary Madeleine Was Here.
So the police did take down the witness statement and record it. It was kept in a file marked “unsolved” not “resolved”.
Says the witness:
“I’m angry that vital time looking for this man has been lost. I can’t believe the police did nothing. My husband and I both helped look for Madeleine. When she disappeared we were horrified and wanted to do all we could to help find her.
“I expected police would come to search all the holiday apartments and question everyone – but they didn’t. If they had done I would have told them about this man straight away. He’d stuck in my mind so much.”
A face like that is hard to erase…
“He was very ugly with active acne, a scarred face, big nose, big ears, and dark skin. He looked as if he was just waiting there outside the McCanns’ apartment with no purpose. I didn’t like him.”
Because he was ugly with “active acne”, a big nose, big ears and dark skin? Or because he was looking like he was doing nothing?
The Sun: “Scarface witness: Police ignored me”
A WITNESS who sparked the hunt for a scarfaced suspect in the Madeleine McCann abduction has NEVER been questioned by police.
The woman twice saw a man dubbed “Mr Ugly” loitering near the McCann holiday apartment before Maddie, three, vanished.
She reported the sightings to British cops when she returned home from Portugal, but they failed to follow up her lead. It was only when she received an emotional phone call from Maddie’s mum Kate, 41, nearly two years later that a photo-fit based on her description was put together…
It was only after Kate got in touch that the woman learnt two other witnesses saw an identical man in the resort of Praia da Luz in May 2007. She said: “I can’t believe our three sightings weren’t linked earlier. It took the McCanns to do that.”
The man is identified as a “weirdo” because he pervs at kids and steals them? Or because he has active acne, big ears, a big nose…
Daily Record: “Detectives probe 18 known perverts in search for Madeleine McCann”
DETECTIVES hunting for Madeleine McCann are studying a list of 18 perverts and six sex attacks on kids in the area where she vanished.
X marks the spots.
Ex-cops hired by parents Kate and Gerry also have details of five new suspects following last week’s publicity on the second anniversary of her disappearance.
Five new suspects? Mr Very Ugly. Mr Hideous. Mr Dare You Look, Mr…
Former detective inspector Dave Edgar tells us:
“There are five or six we are focusing in on. We have names for some.”
Spotty.
Ugly.
Paedo Face…
Edgar says it is more than likely Portuguese cops had the kidnapper in their grasp but let him go.
So who is he? And any evidence?
Madeleine McCann: Let’s point the finger.
Pictures Of All The Madeleine McCann Suspects
Go through two years of news or look here and take your time:
Madeleine McCann: The Story In Pictures
Posted: 12th, May 2009 | In: Key Posts, Madeleine McCann, Media Comments (62) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- June on Oxford Man Parks By Downing Street And Has Car Blown Up
- michelle on X Factor Live: Jedward Do Jive Bunny, Olly Murs Is The Man And Danyl Johnson Is Careless
- Joanna and the Wolf on Katie Price Should Marry Samantha Fox To Give Her Kids A Better Start In Life, Research Says
- annette on X Factor Live: Jedward Do Jive Bunny, Olly Murs Is The Man And Danyl Johnson Is Careless
- stephanie on X Factor Live: Jedward Do Jive Bunny, Olly Murs Is The Man And Danyl Johnson Is Careless
May 16th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Well, I was only asking if what you said to me was quite fair. Whether or not you keep my post in moderation, that was a reasonable question on my part. I don’t believe I am any less “crystal clear” than many other posters and I believe you know that. I have not been rude in any way, simply asking a reasonable question.
I’m sorry if such a question isn’t allowed. But, naturally, the decision is entirely yours as moderators and it doesn’t really matter anyway.
May 16th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Hi Lone
Not too bad, thanks trying to avoid the swine flu (the local school was closed last Monday)
Not been online too much ,family problems.
See the McCanns are now suing Amaral ( new thread!)
Wondered why the invasion of pro McC’s after a long absence
But have to say as sorry as I feel for MM, the spiel goes on and on too much, and not that much about MM herself
May 16th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Hi June
Hope you’re well!
That is absolutely spot on. There can be no argument to that whatsoever. Anyone who states that they are paying for it then great, so they should. It’s the very least they should be feeling.
Noone likes the situation. Noone would ever want it to happen but the buck has to stops with someone and it’s stopped with mccanns. Rightly so.
Regards
Lone
May 16th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Maria
It doesn’t matter whether one ‘likes’ the parents or not, but their lack of care and attention to their children did cause all this. I don’t have to ‘like’ the police either, in fact I’m supremely indifferent to all of them personally, but if the police are being condemned for apparently not doing their job, could you explain why the parents are being lauded in spite of failing in their duty of care to their children?
Its Madeleine who suffered the consequences of both parties failures, and she may have paid with her life.
If brickbats are being thrown at the police, its not on to tell the parents to duck when they didn’t do all they could to prevent an alleged abduction.
The current discussion is where all the parents were at given times, its simple really had they been with their children, where they should have been….
The parents feelings in this are secondary, they made free choices and now its facing the music, and if its discordant, well thats their problem
May 16th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Garth,
Thanks! I knew something of the sort was the case but couldn’t remember the details.
Moderator _ Its best to be crystal clear on the details before you post
May 16th, 2009 at 4:29 pm
54 Maria says:
May 16th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I THINK, but would need to look at a really good plan, with clear photos, of that part of the complex, that there was something, a wall, or a drop of some sort, between JT and the Mcs’ apartment, once she turned the corner to go to her own apartment from the road where she’d seen GM and JW, to swap places with her partner in looking after their own child.
—————————–
Maria
Of course, not that it really matters, but to add; there were two walls, a car park and some large shrubbery between M’s bedroom window and the road at the top, which I believe was the path that Tanner took. And thats not to mention the fact that it was slightly dark with no street lamps.
May 16th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Stig
Comment from Clarence Mitchell in the link you’ve just sent.
“I can confirm that the Portuguese police put it to Gerry as a fact that Madeleine’s DNA had been found in both the apartment and the vehicle when it is now clear that the initial FSS report had made no such claim.
“You have to ask yourself what the police were trying to achieve by overstating evidence that they didn’t have, nor could claim to have.
“One wonders, under those circumstances, what the motivation was.”
I have to disagree with CM. One does NOT have to wonder what the motivation was! One does NOT have to ask oneself what the police were trying to achieve. One has a very good idea! Wonder if CM’s twigged yet?
May 16th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
47 Abraham Zapruder says:
May 16th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Garth, purepseculation but what if Tanner and Kate were in cahoots and Gerry knew nothing about it at the time?
Remember no “smell of death” was detected on Gerry’s clothing and unlike Kate he managed to answer all of the questions the PJ put to him.
———————
AZ
I can only suggest that had that been the case, then surely the Smiths would have described a person carrying a child wearing a skirt and looking like Kate McCann.
With regard to Tanner not noticing the shutters………….. At the time of her sighting she suspected nothing, so why would she look to the shutters anyway?
May 16th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Sorry, MO…Matt Oldfield.
And RB should be RO’B, I suppose!
May 16th, 2009 at 4:05 pm
I THINK, but would need to look at a really good plan, with clear photos, of that part of the complex, that there was something, a wall, or a drop of some sort, between JT and the Mcs’ apartment, once she turned the corner to go to her own apartment from the road where she’d seen GM and JW, to swap places with her partner in looking after their own child.
I don’t know for sure. I don’t keep links, but I did read something to that effect at one time. Maybe someone else knows? I do remember it though, because I’d asked myself exactly the same question. Again, if it was that obvious, I don’t think they would have been stupid enough to come up with the story. In any case, I presume it was dark, she was probably hurrying to let RB out to go to the tapas bar for something to eat. Unless it was near and/or very obvious, she might well not have noticed. (By the way, I didn’t think she’d then left the child alone. She stayed to look after her, didn’t she? I thought she was in her own apartment when Kate came back at 10.0pm.)
Why or how would JT have been in cahoots with Kate?! GM and Kate had been together with the children just before they went to eat. Kate hadn’t even been back to the apartment herself in the meantime; only GM and and MW went to check the kids until Kate went at 10.00pm.
Of course, maybe Kate managed to whisper quickly to JT (in between pretending to be panic-stricken, I mean), that Madeleine had had an accident and died, she, Kate, was going to hid the body in a fridge but wanted to keep it all from GM and would like to concoct a kidnapping story and would JT, as her mate, please think up a lie quickly to support this. Then probably JT said,
“No probs Kate! You’d do the same for me, I’m sure! I’ll think up something. Best not tell Gerry, he might just be a tad annoyed. He does have a bit of a soft spot for the kids. You know what dads are like. By the way, what did you think of the starters tonight? Pathetic weren’t they? Once you’ve secretly buried Madeleine, you’ll have to help me write a strong letter of complaint. OK?”
Yeah…when I think about it, it could have been like that…
May 16th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
June
I was merely taking a favourite word from that great sleuth, Sherlock Holmes, but I wasn’t aware that anyone had forgotten the fact that they had left the children, least of all Madeleine’s parents and wider family who must weep bitterly, daily, over that tragic major failure on their part. The fact that it was, in that sense, their own fault, must only make the grief all the harder to bear.
But let’s not forget that some criminal may have taken Madeleine and done unspeakable things to her. Let’s not forget that, if that’s the case, that person should be hunted down. It is NO EXCUSE to say, over and over and over and over again, that the children should not have been left. It gets nobody anywhere at all to do that. Wringing of hands in self-recrimination on the Mcs’ part would not find the truth but might stop them working hard to pursue the matter by sapping every last drop of emotional energy. Other people smugly blaming them forever for their failure will not help either. Liking or not liking the Mcs as parents is irrelevant.
In any case, their original dreadful error does not let them off the hook now it terms of their duty to do their absolute best to find out what happened to their child. It seems to me that they are doing just that and intend to make it their life’s work, if necessary, to continue doing so.
As I always said, and was mocked by the mods for indecisiveness in saying, as if this had been merely an academic debate in some student union, that should follow “debating rules”, instead of a real live issue……I may be wrong. I don’t know! I can’t know. Neither can anyone, not even PeterMac, a retired policeman! But that’s certainly how it looks to me. And, apparently, it’s how it looks to the police as well.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
Clive
I think I have just answered my own question:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2501055/Madeleine-McCann-Portuguese-detectives-lied-to-Gerry-McCann-about-DNA-evidence.html
In other words, nothing, zilch, nada - no meaningful DNA whatsoever - just more indications of how the PJ were operating at the time.
May 16th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
June
Basically, yes. One of the stories might be spot on in all details or a couple versions could each contain elements that are correct and other which aren’t. My main point is that inconsistencies/mistakes in stories, are not automatically indicative of deception or ill intent, they are to be expected in any traumatic situation.
Clive
When I previously asked what DNA evidence had been retrieved as a consequence of the dogs indications, I was not being facetious, as I genuinely do not know. I know of lots of newspaper reports such as the evidence amounted to no more than 6 badly degraded cells.
What I want to know is what the PJ files say about it, because I am not sure there really wasn any real DNA evidence recovered. So if anyone can point me at the files satement on the matter I would be grateful.
As to the 75% match. It is interesting that leaks from the PJ at the time claimed the match was categorically 100%. I think we all know who was the source of those leaks. A 75% match does not mean much:
“Sir Alec Jeffreys said DNA matches alone did not establish guilt and all Madeleine’s genetic characters would be found in at least one family member.”
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2008/08/sir-alec-jeffreys-and-dna.html
One crucial thing about the dogs and DNA was that not a single trace of Madeline’s blood was found anywhere that the dogs indicated there was some, not a speck.
AZ
I thought the shutters were at the back of the apartment, fronting on to a car park, in other words, around the corner from where everyone was and theirfore out of sight.
May 16th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Garth, any idea why JT apparently didn’t see the open shutters?
May 16th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
* pure speculation
May 16th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Garth, purepseculation but what if Tanner and Kate were in cahoots and Gerry knew nothing about it at the time?
Remember no “smell of death” was detected on Gerry’s clothing and unlike Kate he managed to answer all of the questions the PJ put to him.
May 16th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Maria
Elementary? perhaps a babysitter would have been even more elementary and responsible of the parents?
Lets not forget their neglilence which led to this contribution of this saga
May 16th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Hi Garth!
Brilliantly summed up!
GM would have nothing to gain, as far as I can see, from not supporting what JT says…especially if she was lying to protect him!! It looks he told the simple truth; he didn’t notice her and neither did JW. Presumably they were deep in comparing their respective prowess on the tennis court, or maybe, more charitably, and as JW’s partner wrote in the Guardian, discussing the well-known difficulties of getting babies to sleep!
Amaral’s theory is laughable, not to say highly offensive, because many people saw GM around at 10.00pm. (Of course, he’s making a lot of money out of it and attempting to recover his reputation after being unceremoniously thrown off the case by his own superiors.) It could not possibly have been GM that the Smiths saw, even if the person did bear a resemblance to GM, at least in the Smiths’ memory. And, of course, it was months before that similarity was commented on by them, ie when the Mcs came off the plane on their return to the UK. I seem to remember that it was reported that the PJ just said there was too much bureaucracy and it was too difficult for them to track down this crucial witness once back in Ireland. Absolutely incredible. We can but hope that the two current investigators do manage to follow it up, although I once read that the Smiths (if that’s the real name) were especially anxious to protect their privacy. If true, this is understandable but one hopes they may decide to give further interviews now.
As you say, Garth, one has to wonder why this wasn’t followed up earlier. Of course, it will probably lead nowhere at all at this late date.
One also has to wonder why the Mcs keep on probing for the truth, in the glare of world publicity at the second anniversary, and have appointed new investigators, if they are guilty of some crime. Highly unlikely.
As someone said this has to be left to the police. It WAS left to them and they were unable to come up with anything at all. What hope for amateur sleuths? Elementary……..!!
May 16th, 2009 at 9:28 am
Interestng that Real Stig believes that the inconsistenies in Tapas gang’s
reports are what gives credibility - to paraphrase 75% in agreement supports
the overall picture.
I believe the DNA samples provided a 75% match to Madeleinne, yet this
hard evidence is rejected.
There is too much amateur speculation - we need to wait for the professionals
to come up with hard evidence - or, sadly, a body.
May 16th, 2009 at 8:41 am
According to Amarals’ documentary there is a hypothesis that can explain all known clues……………… (and please, no laughing. This is, apparently, serious!)
Madeleine was disturbed in her sleep by Wilkins and GM talking in the street outside the living room. She awakes and goes to the living room where she clambers over the settee to open the window. She slips and falls banging her head (I guess) which (combined with the calpol
) causes her to die as a result. Gerry is then seen scarting her off down towards the beach with her in his arms (as spotted by the Smiths) whereby her body was concealed.
The above is no joke. I know it is only one explanation but its the one which he gives which ties everything together and which he must believe is near the truth.
Personally, I don’t think you could get any further away from the truth if you tried. And this was the chief investigating officer in this case!!? Unbelievable!!
Feck me, I think even Houdini would be proud of Gerry McCann……….. beat that mate!
May 15th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
AZ
IF, as you suspect, some of the friends were behind a conspiracy, then I wonder exactly what would be gained by GM stating he never saw Tanner?
GM claims he initially crossed over the road to meet Wilkins where they struck up a conversation. Tanner claims they were on the Ocean Club side of the road in conversation when she passed. Wilkins’ statement seems to corroborate this. I would tend to adopt Tanners version as the more reliable as the other two were in conversation and less aware of anything going on around them. One things for sure, if Tanners description appears a little vague due to poor lighting of the top street (bearing in mind she was facing the abductor) then its no wonder the other two never saw this person cross at the top of the road.
I’m not sure how important the exact timing of Tanners sighting and the conversation between Wilkins and GM actually is. But being as they sat for dinner at about 8.30 - 8.40 and Gerry makes the first check around 9.00pm and Tanner makes the second check shortly after then surely the times aren’t going to be that far out anyway.
But, and most importantly, the sighting by the Smiths has to be the most significant part of this whole investigation. It ties in what Tanner has always claimed. However, strangely (or not as the case may be) we don’t hear much about this sighting on forums from the conspiracy theorists! Instead they will continue to scrutinise the actions of the McCanns and the trivial inconsistencies of the whole party as a basis for the McCanns most obvious guilt. Oh, and their dislike for them.
AZ, its over to you
May 15th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
The Real Stig
So you are effectively saying the tapas 7 are mistaken in what they claim they saw/witnessed that night?
May 15th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Abraham Zapruder
Inconsistencies are more a sign of true reporting than consistency, IMO. Humans are incredibly unreliable as witnesses.
Remember the terrible Madrid plane crash last year?
What did witnesses report as having happened at the time?
“Rescue workers reported that the aircraft never took off and instead swerved off”
“Eyewitnesses said the Spanair flight was at least 100 metres off the ground when an engine exploded and it crashed”
“Eyewitnesses said the jet’s left engine, manufactured by Pratt and Whitney, had caught fire during takeoff”
What did actual CCTV footage show?:
“CCTV footage has revealed the dramatic last moments of the Spanair flight that crashed last month near Madrid, killing 154 people.
The minute-long clip shows the aircraft’s takeoff from Madrid’s Barajas airport.
But instead of beginning its ascent, the plane is seen flying barely above ground before overrunning the airport strip.”
“The footage taken by the Spanish civil air authority AENEAS contradicts earlier eyewitness reports that the left engine of the plane burst into flames as it left the runaway. ”
There you have some major inconsistencies, but lying, subterfuge and obfuscation were not behind them, just human weakness.
May 15th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
(37) AZ
Tanner wasn’t at the table when the alarm was raised. She went to the apartment so O’Brien could have his dinner. He returned, the steak was returned to the kitchen and re-heated for him. Then the alarm was raised. I think he still didn’t eat his steak when that happened.
May 15th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Stig, when you have a group giving a collective story there are I think three possible scenarios:
1. A false story that is so well put together that it is watertight, with no or hardly any inconsistencies - as you say, too good to be true.
2. A true story that has a few understandable inconsistencies but will stand up to scrutiny (because it is true)
3. A false story that is badly put together so the conspirators end up falling over each other’s bootstraps - result, too many inconsistencies for it to be true.
May 15th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Garth, we don’t know exactly WHEN Gerry and Wilkins were talking. In his statement Wilkins gives a fairly wide timeframe of 8,45-9.15, whereas the original T7 “colouring book” timelines give Tanner’s sighting at 9.20. So we can’t just take it as read that everything happened as Tanner said it did, and for some reason Gerry and Wilkins didn’t see her or the abductor.
I also find it difficult to accept that O’Brien and Tanner would both return to the tapas table leaving a sick and very young child alone in an apartment some distance away (apparently they were both back at the table when Kate raised the alarm.)
Believing in the abductor is like believing in the Resurrection – it is a question of faith, either you believe it or you don’t. Remove the abductor from the equation and what does that leave?
Nice to be sparring with you again, by the way, it’s just like old times!
May 14th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Disbelief and suspicion concerning Tanner’s sighting is fairly commonplace, the idea being it was simply ‘too’ convenient and is therefore a concoction of the Tapas conspirators designed to mislead.
But if that were the case, why would two of the main likely conspirators, Gerry and Jane, disagree about the circumstances of the sighting - ie Jane saw Gerry but Gerry did not see her when he was talking to Wilkins?
That inconsistency has been seized upon countless times as a sign of there being something fundamentally ‘wrong’ about it’s veracity, when ironically, it should be considered a strong indication that it wasn’t a fabrication born of a conspiracy.
I would have been more suspicious had they all been singing in perfect harmony, with everything all neat and tidy.
May 14th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
I would just like to add that I believe the person who snatched Madeleine, done so for someone else, for someone else who knew of her whereabouts or even had contact with her or the family at some point on that holiday. I also think that the area where the abductor was seen by the Smiths is also of significance in the respect of where she was initially held. Had the abduction been carried out by an organised gang then I’m certain a car would have been used to get her quickly out of Praia de Luz. So I don’t believe she was snatched on orders for child trafficking. Racketeers would have been far more organised than that.
Someone in that town knows what happened to that little girl. And I wouldn’t be surprised if paedophilia is a lot more organised in that town than one would dare to think.
May 14th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
AZ, I really don’t think the fact that GM or Wilkins never saw Tanner has any real bearing on this case. We know that the two of them were talking in that particular street. We also know that Tanner left the dinning table to check on the tots. She must have passed and seen them both as this was the only direct route to the apartments. What is significant about her sighting is the way the child was being carried. i.e. her head to the left shoulder. It may explain the possibility of an accomplice as the child most definitely would have been initially picked up with her head to his right shoulder. Was she passed to someone else through the window?
Another thing which I think is very important in trying to understand is why this person headed off in the direction of Murats home (not saying he had anything to do with it) and yet some 40 mins later or so was spotted in the opposite direction walking down a tiny little lane of. R. da Escola. Was this person just avoiding walking down the main road out of Praia de Luz? He had to cross it at some point.
But for me, even more intriguing is the fact that who ever was carrying her knew there was a possibility of being seen. Okay, he would have known that most people would just accept it as a parent carrying a child but he could have been identified by someone if he was local. He must have had some knowledge prior to the snatching to know where to go. And he also must have known that he didn’t have a great deal of time before alarm bells started ringing.
Whichever way you look at it, although it is claimed Madeleine was being watched (and I’m sure this was the case), the whole escapade was (dare I say) amateurish and, what would seem, rather a desperate one. Somebody had some balls to carry out such an act with such big risks.
I know all of the above goes on the Smiths sighting as fact of the actual abductor, but with four adults claiming the same thing coupled with the description of the child and at a time akin to the kidnapping I would say its pretty strong evidence.
But why did this Portuguese Inspector choose to ignore it? That’s another big question that needs answering. We’ve not heard one from him yet!
May 14th, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Peter
You maintain that there is some image in the Channel 4 documentary that shows a photo which strongly suggests the poolside photo was manipulated. I have had a look at it - http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/Madeleine_Was_Here_Cutting_Edge_Channel_4.htm
- trying to find that evidence. Can you please help me out, as all I have found that might be what you refer to are in scenes where Kate is sitting at her computer and there are photos in the background. Only one of those seems relevant, it is a cropped and blown up part of the poolside photo which only shows Madeline. Is that you smoking gun, or is it some other I missed?
May 14th, 2009 at 10:00 am
Garth, I agree it is odd that the Smith sighting was never cleared up. Some parts of Smith’s story are corroborated – for example I understand there is a credit card receipt confirming the time when he left the restaurant. People have been quick to criticise Tanner for “suddenly remembering” things further down the line (allegedly) yet the same people are apt to believe Smith after he suddenly remembered that his man was Gerry, four or five months later (and, coincidentally, shortly after Gerry was made an arguido.)
So it is difficult to know what to make of the Smith sighting. If we discount his identification of Gerry, then as you say who was it? Originally Smith said it didn’t look like a tourist.
As you will see from my earlier posts, it is not difficult to spot major inconsistencies in the T9 timeline. IMO they should NOT have misrepresented the facts in any way. IF they did so then this could/would have made things worse for Maddie and what kind of parent would do that?
I agree it is difficult to go along with Amaral’s theories in relation to the initial hiding of Maddie and the alleged findings in the hire car. The only way this could work is if there was an accomplice outside the T9 and, as far as I am aware, there is no proof of this.
And okay, the dogs’ signals are not evidence as such. But the main thing that niggles me about this case is the part of the story where Tanner says she saw Gerry, Wilkins and the abductor yet nether Gerry nor Wilkins saw Tanner or the abductor. I feel that this holds one of the keys to solving the case but quite why I just can’t put my finger on it.